for those of you who don't know, i am in the US Army. i joined the Utah National Guard 2 years ago--in march 2010. it has been a great experience. it has also been very different from my experiences in high school, at college, or on my church mission.
in comparing the army with my personal religious beliefs, i often have been faced with conflicts. i don't enjoy the dirty jokes, drunkenness, or profanities that are often a part of Army culture. in mentioning this, i want to point out that the Army is full of very good people. just because they differ from me in behavior or religious preference does not make them somehow "bad." i have often been impressed with the professionalism and conduct of my fellow soldiers. they strive to live the Army values, which are:
Loyalty
Duty
Respect
Selfless Service
Honor
Integrity
Personal Courage
in my unit, i interact with many soldiers--male and female, old and young, enlisted and officers. religion does not come up often in conversation (though we do start company activities with a prayer). in my company there are few people that are actively and openly religious. those few people tend to hold back in conversations because they do not want to be involved with some of the conversation topics that come up.
there is a brother and sister in my company who are very religious and innocent. they both recently turned in mission paperwork at the same time (she is 21, and he is 19). i have been impressed with how genuine and sincere they are. these two individuals are without guile.
yesterday at the chow hall, one of the soldiers brought up the "popcorn song." the young man did a little demonstration of the song, singing it for those of us at the table. if you are LDS you know it--just a ridiculous little ditty about how the blossoms on fruit trees looks like popcorn. a few minutes later the first sergeant came in the room. one of the soldiers at our table said, "hey first sergeant! this kid has a song he wants to sing for you! he's been practicing at our table." the first sergeant loved it. he called the young soldier over and announced to the whole company, "hey, listen up! we've got us some entertainment."
we all laughed and enjoyed as the soldier sang "popcorn popping on the apricot tree," complete with actions. he was red-faced and embarrassed, but a good sport about it. when he sat back down, one of the soldiers said, "man you are so innocent i fear for you." we laughed, but i could tell that he meant it. the young soldier could also sense that. one of the other soldiers said, "yeah, you need to get out of utah," somehow implying that his innocence was naive and ought to be outgrown. the implication was that only by getting out of utah could he experience what the world is really like.
what bothered me was the expectation that he needed to "finally grow up." did the other soldiers think that after living somewhere else he would come home with street smarts and cynicism, finally willing to laugh at their dirty jokes? i understand what they were saying. after all, i think utah is quite a protected place, separated from many aspects of the "real world." perhaps it is a good thing to go out and experience the difference. whether you live in south africa, russia, or south america (this young soldier will be serving in ecuador), i think that there is value in experiencing different cultures, religions, and languages. i also think that there is a lot of variety to be found within the united states.
while it is good to experience differences in culture and perspective, we do not have to change ourselves to fit whatever culture we live in. we can (and should) still be ourselves. i believe that we can let our experiences change us, and we can increase in our ability to understand and empathize with others. however this increase in understanding does not need to coincide with a decrease in those beliefs and behaviors that make us who we are.
i am glad to say that i never "grew up" from my state of innocence. i have learned and understood many things so far in my life, and i plan to learn much more. but i have come to the conclusion that innocence is not just a state of being; it is a choice. there are several definitions of innocence: freedom from sin/guilt, simplicity/naiveté, harmlessness, and lack of knowledge or understanding. i think all but the last are positive attributes that we ought to be developing in ourselves.
in conclusion, i want to go back to the story of this young solider. i hope he never grows up. i hope he expands in learning and understanding while remaining innocent, simple, and harmless. i hope he can stay strong and be himself in a world that sees innocence as weakness and naiveté as stupidity.
Showing posts with label self-improvement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label self-improvement. Show all posts
Monday, March 19, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
equality in relationships
this post was inspired by the thoughts of dr. kelly flanagan in a post called, "marriage is for losers." i encourage you to read it--it is relevant and well stated.
i have often thought about equality between relationship partners. in every relationship i have been in, i have considered whether one of us was more dominant than the other. think about the relationships you have had. did one person always make the decisions? did one person always get their way? was there usually a "winner" and a "loser" in fights, arguments, or conversation?
how much do you compromise in a relationship? how much ought you to give up for your partner's sake? i believe it is just as possible to give too much as it is to give too little.
your thoughts, feelings, and opinions are much of what makes up who you are. these things need to be shared VERY OPENLY in relationships. i have seen the effect of poor communication in relationships. in most cases, not sharing an opinion is infinitely worse than sharing one.
now i want to suggest that there is a correlation between relationship equality and compromise. in order to be equal, both partners in a relationship need to share their feelings. there also needs to be a willingness to compromise. sometimes this means that you don't get to eat at your choice of restaurant. sometimes this means that you allow your partner to "win" an argument even when you think he/she is clearly wrong. compromising does not mean that the same person is always compromising--it needs to go both ways. whatever the circumstance, we need to be open enough to consider the other person's point of view. and we should be able to expect that our partner is honestly sharing their point of view. there is no reason for silence.
dr. ben carson taught me a lesson at the BYU devotional on Feb 24th. he told the story of a pair of adult siamese twins. they were very intelligent. both had college degrees. both of them had doctorates (though only one of them had wanted one). in considering the operation to separate them, they were informed that there was a possibility that one or both of them could die. despite the danger, they decided to go ahead. ben quoted them as saying, "we would rather die than spend another day stuck together." dr. carson gave us this response: "i was surprised at first, but then i did something that i highly recommend you try out--i put myself in their shoes." after he considered how difficult it would be to spend literally every second of every day stuck to another person, regardless of how much you liked that person, he decided it would be very difficult indeed.
the point i am trying to make in sharing that story is that we need to put ourselves in our partners shoes. we may think that we know our partner very well, but chances are that you don't know everything. i bet that those siamese twins still had arguments. i bet that they sometimes surprised each other with their differences of opinion. as we interact with our significant others, we need to put ourselves in their shoes often. every time that we disagree. that doesn't mean we will necessarily change our minds, but it does mean we are more likely to understand and to empathize.
in dr. flanagan's blog, he speaks of three different kinds of marriage relationships. the first two are grossly unequal. i quote from his blog:
"In the first kind of marriage, both spouses are competing to win, and it’s a duel to the death. Husbands and wives are armed with a vast arsenal, ranging from fists, to words, to silence. These are the marriages that destroy. Spouses destroy each other, and, in the process, they destroy the peace of their children. In fact, the destruction is so complete that research tells us it is better for children to have divorced parents than warring parents. These marriages account for most of the fifty percent of marriages that fail, and then some."
"The second kind of marriage is ripe with winning and losing, but the roles are set, and the loser is always the same spouse. These are the truly abusive marriages, the ones in which one spouse dominates, the other submits, and in the process, both husband and wife are stripped of their dignity. These are the marriages of addicts and enablers, tyrants and slaves, and they may be the saddest marriages of all."
"But there is a third kind of marriage. The third kind of marriage is not perfect, not even close. But a decision has been made, and two people have decided to love each other to the limit, and to sacrifice the most important thing of all—themselves. In these marriages, losing becomes a way of life, a competition to see who can listen to, care for, serve, forgive, and accept the other the most. The marriage becomes a competition to see who can change in ways that are most healing to the other, to see who can give of themselves in ways that most increase the dignity and strength of the other. These marriages form people who can be small and humble and merciful and loving and peaceful."
after reading his words, i came to the conclusion that i need to work to have that third type of marriage in my future. the others are too painful and sad to consider. so how do we create that kind of self-sacrificing, loving, compromising relationship? and how do we do it without changing too much of ourselves?
i believe it is possible to change and compromise in a healthy way and in a healthy quantity. i think there are two main things that we can do to foster equality in our relationships:
1) listen to each other. try to listen more than you talk. when your partner is not speaking, listen more. as you listen, put on his/her shoes.
2) do not be silent. share your opinions, both big and small. there is no reason why a mother-in-law should hear the true feelings of a husband or wife before it has been shared with their partner.
i think there is too much of a tendency for one person in a relationship to dominate the relationship. that dominant person calls all the shots, makes all the plans, and ends up in control. at first there may be a reason why their partner puts up with it. maybe they are just glad to have a boyfriend/girlfriend (or husband/wife). maybe they don't like making choices or they have a hard time choosing between alternatives. but i don't think it is good for a relationship to be so one-sided. in most cases we will make better decisions when two people come together and deliberate. even if our decision is not the best (in our opinion) we may find that joint-solutions are more effective than a solution decided upon without mutual agreement.
i want a relationship where my opinion is equal to (not superior to) my wife's. i want a relationship where my wife feels comfortable calling me an idiot when i am acting like one. i want a relationship where we are both willing to admit it when we are at fault. what do you want? share your thoughts.
i have often thought about equality between relationship partners. in every relationship i have been in, i have considered whether one of us was more dominant than the other. think about the relationships you have had. did one person always make the decisions? did one person always get their way? was there usually a "winner" and a "loser" in fights, arguments, or conversation?
how much do you compromise in a relationship? how much ought you to give up for your partner's sake? i believe it is just as possible to give too much as it is to give too little.
your thoughts, feelings, and opinions are much of what makes up who you are. these things need to be shared VERY OPENLY in relationships. i have seen the effect of poor communication in relationships. in most cases, not sharing an opinion is infinitely worse than sharing one.
now i want to suggest that there is a correlation between relationship equality and compromise. in order to be equal, both partners in a relationship need to share their feelings. there also needs to be a willingness to compromise. sometimes this means that you don't get to eat at your choice of restaurant. sometimes this means that you allow your partner to "win" an argument even when you think he/she is clearly wrong. compromising does not mean that the same person is always compromising--it needs to go both ways. whatever the circumstance, we need to be open enough to consider the other person's point of view. and we should be able to expect that our partner is honestly sharing their point of view. there is no reason for silence.
dr. ben carson taught me a lesson at the BYU devotional on Feb 24th. he told the story of a pair of adult siamese twins. they were very intelligent. both had college degrees. both of them had doctorates (though only one of them had wanted one). in considering the operation to separate them, they were informed that there was a possibility that one or both of them could die. despite the danger, they decided to go ahead. ben quoted them as saying, "we would rather die than spend another day stuck together." dr. carson gave us this response: "i was surprised at first, but then i did something that i highly recommend you try out--i put myself in their shoes." after he considered how difficult it would be to spend literally every second of every day stuck to another person, regardless of how much you liked that person, he decided it would be very difficult indeed.
the point i am trying to make in sharing that story is that we need to put ourselves in our partners shoes. we may think that we know our partner very well, but chances are that you don't know everything. i bet that those siamese twins still had arguments. i bet that they sometimes surprised each other with their differences of opinion. as we interact with our significant others, we need to put ourselves in their shoes often. every time that we disagree. that doesn't mean we will necessarily change our minds, but it does mean we are more likely to understand and to empathize.
in dr. flanagan's blog, he speaks of three different kinds of marriage relationships. the first two are grossly unequal. i quote from his blog:
"In the first kind of marriage, both spouses are competing to win, and it’s a duel to the death. Husbands and wives are armed with a vast arsenal, ranging from fists, to words, to silence. These are the marriages that destroy. Spouses destroy each other, and, in the process, they destroy the peace of their children. In fact, the destruction is so complete that research tells us it is better for children to have divorced parents than warring parents. These marriages account for most of the fifty percent of marriages that fail, and then some."
"The second kind of marriage is ripe with winning and losing, but the roles are set, and the loser is always the same spouse. These are the truly abusive marriages, the ones in which one spouse dominates, the other submits, and in the process, both husband and wife are stripped of their dignity. These are the marriages of addicts and enablers, tyrants and slaves, and they may be the saddest marriages of all."
"But there is a third kind of marriage. The third kind of marriage is not perfect, not even close. But a decision has been made, and two people have decided to love each other to the limit, and to sacrifice the most important thing of all—themselves. In these marriages, losing becomes a way of life, a competition to see who can listen to, care for, serve, forgive, and accept the other the most. The marriage becomes a competition to see who can change in ways that are most healing to the other, to see who can give of themselves in ways that most increase the dignity and strength of the other. These marriages form people who can be small and humble and merciful and loving and peaceful."
after reading his words, i came to the conclusion that i need to work to have that third type of marriage in my future. the others are too painful and sad to consider. so how do we create that kind of self-sacrificing, loving, compromising relationship? and how do we do it without changing too much of ourselves?
i believe it is possible to change and compromise in a healthy way and in a healthy quantity. i think there are two main things that we can do to foster equality in our relationships:
1) listen to each other. try to listen more than you talk. when your partner is not speaking, listen more. as you listen, put on his/her shoes.
2) do not be silent. share your opinions, both big and small. there is no reason why a mother-in-law should hear the true feelings of a husband or wife before it has been shared with their partner.
i think there is too much of a tendency for one person in a relationship to dominate the relationship. that dominant person calls all the shots, makes all the plans, and ends up in control. at first there may be a reason why their partner puts up with it. maybe they are just glad to have a boyfriend/girlfriend (or husband/wife). maybe they don't like making choices or they have a hard time choosing between alternatives. but i don't think it is good for a relationship to be so one-sided. in most cases we will make better decisions when two people come together and deliberate. even if our decision is not the best (in our opinion) we may find that joint-solutions are more effective than a solution decided upon without mutual agreement.
i want a relationship where my opinion is equal to (not superior to) my wife's. i want a relationship where my wife feels comfortable calling me an idiot when i am acting like one. i want a relationship where we are both willing to admit it when we are at fault. what do you want? share your thoughts.
Monday, December 5, 2011
optimism
about two weeks ago, i was thinking about the many demands on my time and worrying about the end of the semester. as i walked home, the thought came to me: 'there is nothing wrong in your life.' all of the sudden my perspective changed. here i was, worrying about classes and my gpa, while in the rest of the world there are billions worrying about poor health, poverty, and starvation. i sit in my nice desk chair typing at my brand new computer, while hundreds of millions cannot even read, let alone type.
i guess my gpa is important, but compared to the problems of the world, it is insignificant. i am so blessed! i have everything i need to survive and thrive.
since that moment i have been more optimistic. i have very little reason to ever let myself become down. i can laugh a little more at my worries with this more optimistic perspective. things will work out. as long as i have my family, my health, and something to eat, i am well off indeed.
this morning i was a little frustrated. yesterday my national guard unit was mobilized to respond to a disaster in northern Utah. there was a wind storm in Davis County that left a lot of damage, debris, and trash. i missed church, my ward break the fast (that i was in charge of), the first presidency Christmas devotional, the weekly Sunday game night at my home, and worst of all--i didn't get to prepare for my multiple tests, my project, and my oral presentation for today.
after my initial frustration, i had a few thoughts. first i remembered my experience from a few weeks earlier. i thought of that phrase: 'there is nothing wrong in your life.' and with that thought, my perspective changed. i was excited for the opportunity to work in the community, doing the things i had trained to do. i thought of all the soldiers at war, and was glad that i am safe. i also remembered a song.
Believe by Yellowcard
"Believe" celebrates the firemen and policemen on September 11th who lost their lives trying to save people trapped in the towers. their lives were tough. they gave the ultimate sacrifice. i worried about missing an exam.
in the end i was blessed to get off of work today to take my tests and give my presentation. tomorrow i will go back to Farmington to continue helping with the cleanup. even though i was able to avoid missing my tests, i was willing to skip them after i considered the sacrifices of those who have gone before and given much more.
(if you want more info on that song, visit the wikipedia article, it is pretty cool.)
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
offensive
what do you find offensive?
i am learning that people take offense at many different things. i don't get offended by hardly anything. if i can think of a plausible reason why someone is doing something, and i don't think that they are trying to offend me, i don't get offended. i can still be unhappy or something, but offense is different.
i suppose that offenses are as diverse as people are.
to some, burning the flag is a demonstration of freedom of speech. to others it is highly offensive.
to some, pornography is a form of entertainment. to others it is highly offensive.
to some, foul language is not foul, but the norm. to others it is highly offensive.
to some, violence is enjoyable, even 'awesome.' to others it is highly offensive.
it is easy to judge others when they do something or enjoy something that we find offensive. and in our opinion, they deserve that judgment. but do we (and should we) consider the motivations behind a person's actions?
i am a sensitive person. in some ways. like everyone else, i have my own set of things that do not bother me and things that offend me. i remember talking one day to a couple of sergeants in the army. as they talked, they incorporated several colorful words into their discussion. this made me a little uncomfortable, and they noticed. one of the sergeants said, 'moore, do you not like it when we cuss?' i told them that i didn't prefer it. one of them apologized immediately. the other said, 'why does it bother you? i understand how it can bother you if i'm yelling at you and cussing, but i was just talking to my friend here.' it was an interesting experience. i think they both did well. the first, with no desire to offend, promptly apologized for doing something i didn't like. the second was less understanding, but he also recognized that there were circumstances whereby his language could be offensive. he was also willing to ask me for clarification to see why it bothered me.
in a similar circumstance while at basic training, the whole company was standing in a formation as a sergeant briefed us with our nightly briefing. at one point he said, 'you are all men, so i want to talk to you like men. is there anyone here that is upset with my language?' i raised my hand, and several soldiers in my platoon called out, 'moore doesn't like it.' they knew me well. the sergeant was surprised. he hadn't expected any response. he asked me if i was religious, and i told him i was. he asked me whether Jesus would be offended with his language, and told me that from his understanding of the Bible, Jesus was always with sinners and with rough crowds. he asked if i thought i was any better than Jesus. interesting question... i don't see how that applied, since i was always with sinners and rough crowds. i told him that Jesus was with those people but he didn't condone their behavior. he was always encouraging people to be better. he asked me why i was offended by language, and i explained to him (in front of the entire formation) that i tried to keep myself a clean vessel where the Holy Spirit could reside. language is just one of many things that can offend the Spirit, and i wanted to keep myself as close to God as I could. he was baffled, but he had run out of arguments, and proceeded with the briefing.
being in the Army has taught me a lot about myself. in basic training i didn't want to be a prude, always being haughty and judgmental. but i also didn't want to participate in the same kind of conversation and behavior as the typical army guy. i wanted to be separate and apart from those things, being in the world but not of the world. i found that exposure to the evil in the world softened me to the Spirit. rather than becoming more hardened and accustomed to crudeness and vulgarity, i came to see these things as a way that i could be different. i have resolved not to use such language, not because it is the worst thing in the world, but because doing so keeps me strong and close to God. it is another way i set myself apart from the world. as Christians we are to be a "chosen generation, . . a peculiar people."
i think that it is important to consider the feelings of others in our everyday interactions. things that are no big deal to us may offend others. things that offend us may be very unimportant to others. the key is to respect others. as you do, others will want to respect you.
i am learning that people take offense at many different things. i don't get offended by hardly anything. if i can think of a plausible reason why someone is doing something, and i don't think that they are trying to offend me, i don't get offended. i can still be unhappy or something, but offense is different.
i suppose that offenses are as diverse as people are.
to some, burning the flag is a demonstration of freedom of speech. to others it is highly offensive.
to some, pornography is a form of entertainment. to others it is highly offensive.
to some, foul language is not foul, but the norm. to others it is highly offensive.
to some, violence is enjoyable, even 'awesome.' to others it is highly offensive.
it is easy to judge others when they do something or enjoy something that we find offensive. and in our opinion, they deserve that judgment. but do we (and should we) consider the motivations behind a person's actions?
i am a sensitive person. in some ways. like everyone else, i have my own set of things that do not bother me and things that offend me. i remember talking one day to a couple of sergeants in the army. as they talked, they incorporated several colorful words into their discussion. this made me a little uncomfortable, and they noticed. one of the sergeants said, 'moore, do you not like it when we cuss?' i told them that i didn't prefer it. one of them apologized immediately. the other said, 'why does it bother you? i understand how it can bother you if i'm yelling at you and cussing, but i was just talking to my friend here.' it was an interesting experience. i think they both did well. the first, with no desire to offend, promptly apologized for doing something i didn't like. the second was less understanding, but he also recognized that there were circumstances whereby his language could be offensive. he was also willing to ask me for clarification to see why it bothered me.
in a similar circumstance while at basic training, the whole company was standing in a formation as a sergeant briefed us with our nightly briefing. at one point he said, 'you are all men, so i want to talk to you like men. is there anyone here that is upset with my language?' i raised my hand, and several soldiers in my platoon called out, 'moore doesn't like it.' they knew me well. the sergeant was surprised. he hadn't expected any response. he asked me if i was religious, and i told him i was. he asked me whether Jesus would be offended with his language, and told me that from his understanding of the Bible, Jesus was always with sinners and with rough crowds. he asked if i thought i was any better than Jesus. interesting question... i don't see how that applied, since i was always with sinners and rough crowds. i told him that Jesus was with those people but he didn't condone their behavior. he was always encouraging people to be better. he asked me why i was offended by language, and i explained to him (in front of the entire formation) that i tried to keep myself a clean vessel where the Holy Spirit could reside. language is just one of many things that can offend the Spirit, and i wanted to keep myself as close to God as I could. he was baffled, but he had run out of arguments, and proceeded with the briefing.
being in the Army has taught me a lot about myself. in basic training i didn't want to be a prude, always being haughty and judgmental. but i also didn't want to participate in the same kind of conversation and behavior as the typical army guy. i wanted to be separate and apart from those things, being in the world but not of the world. i found that exposure to the evil in the world softened me to the Spirit. rather than becoming more hardened and accustomed to crudeness and vulgarity, i came to see these things as a way that i could be different. i have resolved not to use such language, not because it is the worst thing in the world, but because doing so keeps me strong and close to God. it is another way i set myself apart from the world. as Christians we are to be a "chosen generation, . . a peculiar people."
i think that it is important to consider the feelings of others in our everyday interactions. things that are no big deal to us may offend others. things that offend us may be very unimportant to others. the key is to respect others. as you do, others will want to respect you.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
BMSF
have you ever stuck your foot in your mouth? i have. both literally and figuratively. actually just the other day i found out that i am capable of sucking on both of my toes simultaneously. it isn't comfortable or tasty.
in an earlier post, i mentioned something called a BMSF. this is a feature that most civilized, socially appropriate people seem to develop on their own. not me. when i was 16, i took part in the eagle project of one Eric Campbell. his project involved building a trail in the Prescott National Forest in Arizona. it was a pretty sweet project, and a lot of fun to be involved in. as we tried to make a flat, smooth path, we met with many obstacles. like icebergs, these rocks and roots only showed a small percentage of their actual size above the soil. rocks that looked like you could just pick them up turned out to be large boulders that took considerable effort to remove. after some time and effort, i commented to those working around me that my back hurt. one of the men standing right next to me said, 'well, if you need it, i know a really good chiropractor.' being the idiot i am, i responded, 'oh, no thanks. i went to a chiropractor as a kid, and it didn't help me at all. i don't trust chiropractors.'
(at this point, insert foot into mouth)
he responded, 'oh, i'm sorry to hear that. i'm a chiropractor.' yeah... way to go jeremy.
my best friend growing up often complained about my apparent lack of a BMSF. i am really good at saying funny things that range from scatological humor to politically incorrect racial and gender jokes (for one of my great gender jokes, see my post on gender equality.) it is pretty immature, and i enjoy it. i guess there is a time for professionalism and a time for being silly, and i like to have those silly times where i can just say what comes to mind.
so how do we avoid the embarrassment of accidentally calling a chiropractor a lier? i guess we all have those times where we regret the words we speak as we are speaking them. sometimes we wish we could reach out and grab those words in midair before they reach the ears of those around us. i don't know the answer. but if we are careful, and make use of a BMSF we can avoid giving offense or receiving embarrassment. just be wise. that's what jacob said.
if you want to share an embarrassing foot-in-the-mouth story, post it below!
if you want to share an embarrassing foot-in-the-mouth story, post it below!
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
shouldabeen
one of my favorite books is Why Nations Go to War by John Stoessinger. if you like history, war, or are interested in the effect individuals can have on society, then you should look it up (also if you live in provo and want to read it, i can borrow it to you). as i read the book, the thing that struck me the most is how each major conflict began, escalated, and concluded with the decisions of either one person, or a very few people. i think it is so interesting to contrast the few decision makers with the thousands or millions of lives that are affected by their decisions. it is so easy to analyze the lives of these great (and in some cases terrible) leaders and see what they should have done.
and imagine-- if not for the mistakes of history, life could be how it "shouldabeen" instead of how it is. who wouldn't go back and prevent WWI--that senseless, horribly bloody war, started by the decisions of a few monarchs and emperors . . . who wouldn't prevent the holocaust? who wouldn't change the continual escalation of the war in Vietnam, if only we could know the outcome at the outset?
(On a side note, Stoessinger's analysis of war seems to draw heavily from the Great Man theory, which basically states that history can be explained by analyzing influential individuals and the decisions they make)
on sept 12th, the Onion published a fascinating article regarding the events that have taken place since sept 11th 2001. knowing the Onion's general insensitivity and horrible political incorrectness, i saw the article title and did not read it. later, with my brother's recommendation, i looked it up. The article is a great commentary on what "shouldabeen." without placing blame on any individual or group, the article covers a broad scope of events and situations that have happened, and using 20/20 hindsight vision, talks about what we all wish would have happened.
in 2001, full of patriotism, all of America stood shoulder-to-shoulder in firm resolve against terrorism. we supported war in Iraq, the search for Osama in Afghanistan, and had no problems with the new security measures at the airports. as time went on, we have been decreasingly patriotic and increasingly dissatisfied with the wars, the long search (finally culminated with Osama's death on may 1, 2011), and the difficulties of establishing democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
what i like about the onion article is that it describes what we would have predicted when we went to war ten years ago: a swift capture of Osama bin Laden; the establishment of a stable government in Afghanistan; the completion of the Freedom Tower in NYC; and the maturity of the American people, as evidenced by an increase in mutual respect and understanding between the Muslim and Christian communities.
now it is easy (with hindsight as our guide) to say what could have been done differently to achieve those results. unfortunately, we don't have any idea what would have worked. we only have these ideas of what "shouldabeen." as usual, our society looks for a scapegoat. we throw blame around in some frantic attempt to absolve ourselves of responsibility. but blame doesn't make me feel any better about our failures, and it certainly doesn't change the past!
bringing this a little closer to each of us, i suggest that we consider our own goals and dreams. as an individual, a youth during much of the last ten years, i had little understanding of the implications of an event like september 11th. most of us had little influence on the international events of the last ten years. but while we may be unable to alter world history, we should all make an effort in our own lives to avoid personal "shoudabeens."
we have control of our own lives. sometimes we feel like the external forces around us keep us from being in control, and i admit that some things are beyond us. however, in most situations we are in control of our lives. we can choose what we do, and when we do it. we don't get to decide where we start out in life, but with hard work and consistent effort, we can control where we are at and set the course for where we want to go. since we can control our lives, we ought to be able to prevent "shouldabeens." we can set goals and work towards them. we can conquer our fears, establish peace in our lives, complete the goals that we set, and learn to respect and understand others. with these guidelines, we will look back ten years from now without "shouldabeens" on our lips. we will be able to say, like george w. in our fictional onion world, "These last 10 years could have been divisive, turbulent, sad, hopeless, and grotesque. But instead, they were the exact opposite of those things. And for that we must all feel both blessed and truly proud."
The architects of the past 10 years of peace and prosperity drink to their success
from the observation deck of New York's Freedom Tower. (Source: theonion.com)
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
perspective
ever heard of perspective? it is that little thing that makes you see things differently than others. some decisions that seem easy to us can be incredibly difficult for someone else. we may see the world as something ugly, while another finds it beautiful. we may respond to situations in a completely different way than another person would. (see Alma 62:41)
i guess perspective is what gives people hope. although our circumstances may not always be under our control, each of us has control of the way we respond to difficulties around us. We can allow our difficulties to make us cranky, or we can respond with patience and humility.
the optimist and the pessimist are both self-made. the difference between the grouchy old man and the friendly grandpa is simply attitude.
at this point, i would like to insert a side note about how much i love africa. not the country, but the person. she makes my head go round and round. she is the peanut butter to my jelly and the flip to my flops. she had my heart at 'hello.' i knew it from the moment that we met. she's everything; she's a falling star, the get-away car, and the line in the sand when i go too far. so africa, tell me that we belong together. dress it up with the trappings of love. i'll be captivated. i'll hang from your lips. instead of the gallows of heartache that hang from above.
back to perspective.
the other day i was climbing the stairs at the Provo temple, trying to get up to the chapel in time for the session. i was kind of in a hurry, as i was running a bit late. an old man was struggling to get up the stairs and blocked most of the staircase. i was pretty impatient, and slipped past him quickly. he said 'hello' and gave me a smile as i ran by, and i muttered a lame 'hi' back at him. when we got to an endowment room, the old man was the last one inside (right behind me). he shuffled in, and i noticed that he was in pain--moving slowly and limping. before he sat, he gave me a big smile and extended his hand. we shook hands, and he thanked me for being at the temple. my opinion of him skyrocketed; his sense of perspective really uplifted me. that man could have been anywhere, sitting around and wasting away the last years of his life. he could have hated his body for the pain it caused him. he could have been cold and dour in his interactions with others. instead, he was at the temple, serving his fellow men and serving the Lord. He lifted my spirits with a smile, kind words, and a firm handshake. what a good man! in his pain and old age he did not shy away from living an active, happy lifestyle. he didn't even take the elevator.
i love the temple. it has such a powerful influence on my mood. as i go there every week my worries and difficulties melt away, and i find myself entirely at peace. just going to the temple grounds or looking at pictures of the temple helps me to feel the Spirit and want to be a little bit better. To check out some of the temples, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)