Choose to Have Faith in Miracles

One of the challenges with being a religious person in this modern age of scientific advancement and its trend toward secularism is that at times you have to figure out how to hold onto crazy stories that contradict whatever you learned in science and history. It would be an interesting project to dig into why nearly every religious tradition has these crazy stories sitting at their foundation. Perhaps it stems from ancient tradition before science was well understood when there was a tendency to mix superstition with a desire to understand the world. But come on, there’s some crazy stuff. I don’t know a lot about the tradition stories of other religions, but I know my own, let me give a few examples:

From the Old Testament, Jonas was swallowed whole and then sat for three days in the belly of a whale as punishment for failing to preach to Nineveh. When he finally consented he was spit out onto the shore so he could convince the cities inhabitants to repent.

Or God created the earth and the water and the animals and then Adam and Eve in a garden where they would live forever in a state of innocence. Until, of course, Eve partakes of an apple that brings to the world sin and death.

Or of course, Jesus born to a virgin woman, lives a sinless life, healing the sick, turning water to wine, raising the dead up until his own crucifixion, when 3 days later he, himself rises from the dead and from this event starts a world wide religion that would sweep the earth.

Or later, in the 1800’s, an uneducated farm boy, Joseph Smith, guided by an angel, finds gold plates in a hill near his house. Then in a period of 3 months, produces another book of scripture detailing the events of Christians living in America spanning 1000 years before, during and after the life of Christ. And then in his lifetime, he produces another book revealing new revelations from Abraham’s life.

So, why not a belief in Santa Claus as well?

How do I as a Christian make sense of this? For one, my course of life has not really forced me to reckon with the craziness too much. I don’t study evolution in my day job; I’m not a physicist, nor really a scientist. I’m in software, I build stuff; I solve real world problems, making the mundane a little easier for people. That’s where I spend most of my day. I can go to church on Sunday, pray day and night, read my scriptures and just accept the possibility that a being in another world with more power than my mind can imagine cares for the daily mundane problems of my life. So, I accept these stories at face value because at times I have to. I just cannot believe that I’m left to my own devices to face the world alone. It feels so much better to believe I have a God who loves me and is willing to help me navigate the world.

But you know what, I love these stories. But what’s more, they aren’t just stories. Scripture describes both science and history in ways that make a mockery of both. It’s almost as if God said, I’m going to make it as hard as possible for some to believe just so I can make it as easy as possible for as many people to believe as possible. The creation story is breathtakingly simple. And through the story, a theology of the fall and the need for a Savior and an explanation of sin and grace and justice comes out of it. We learn why it’s important to work and why we have trials. It gives us a reason for the weeds in our garden or cars that break down or software with bugs or periods of unemployment or rejection. The existence Adam and Eve make no scientific sense, but it gives our lives meaning in a way that evolution would never be able to.

Apologists and Mormon academics have tried to find archeological proof of the Book of Mormon. Skeptics point out the lack of  DNA evidence that would show an ancient American link to Jerusalem. But the Book of Mormon turns Christianity into both an ancient and global religion. The book explains that the idea of Jesus was known not only to those in Jerusalem but also to those in America. And as a result provides a second testimony of the resurrection and shows that God loves all those who inhabit the earth.

There is actually historical evidence that contradicts the crucifixion and resurrection story of Jesus. But it’s the resurrection that is at the heart of Christianity, showing that through it, death will not be victorious and that through it we will all live again.

I love the story of Santa Claus. My older kids have lost their faith in Santa, sadly. Our young kids still believe. My son is right; Santa is really hard to believe in, the story makes no sense, as you get older. He doesn’t believe because how in the world could Santa travel to every house in the world in a single night. It defies physics. But he thinks he might believe because would his parents really buy that many presents for him and his sisters (we have a history of going a bit over-board). So, Santa is difficult, but still worth believing in perhaps.

But you know what I love more? A God who is also my spiritual father with a capacity to love and look out for me, his child and that this God would send His son to save me, a sinner, providing hope for change and growth. As a father myself who feels the very real weight of four children to care for, it’s good to know that I have someone with both the capacity and the will to help me.

None of this makes sense scientifically.  Evidence points in the opposite direction. I choose to believe anyway.

A few thoughts on the LD26 debate

I wish I had more time this election season to carefully watch and blog about each debate in detail. As it stands, I'm having to watch debates sporadically usually while doing something else pieces at a time. And I'm only going to be able to post quick thoughts about them here.

Here's the LD26 debate for the benefit of those living as I do in that district:



A few quick points:

Nothing against those running against the Democrats in this district but it seems like the Republican party has given up on it. I say that because it just doesn't seem like the Republican party candidates are getting the same kind of backing and support as the Democrats. The Democratic candidates have more experience. Obviously because all of them are incumbents, but they all just seem to understand politics deeply. All three have an obvious and deep passion for it and seem to be it in for the long haul.

The two Republican candidates (well the Senate candidate, Dale Eames is really running as an independent), are just citizens of the community, to use their words, who had to be talked into running largely because no one else would.  Eames literally decided to run at the very last minute and scrambled to get the necessary signatures. Neither have much in the way of political experience. The Democrats, by contrast, have a stronger grasp of the technicalities of each issue.

In the debate, of the Republicans,  James Roy did make one really good point that I wish would have gotten vetted better, that increased access costs are squeezing funding for schools. We can't fund everything, keep tax rates low and close are coming deficits - a few brief mentions on the looming deficits were mentioned, but mostly only by Andrew Sherwood.

I'm not one to enjoy a fight (ok, maybe a little), but I want the candidates to go at each other a little bit, I want views to be challenged and defended, but very little of that went on in this debate. There was a lot of agreement around more laws to prosecute animal cruelty (I wish there would have been more representation to the idea that we tend to over-punish reflexively).

Andrew Sherwood come off a little arrogant to me. Very knowledgeable and passionate. I'm not sure how he behaves with his colleagues and there's a place for a bull dog, but an ounce of humility wouldn't hurt. I'm not sure if that was more of a performance?


Juan Mendez showed the most humility of three democrats which is good. He made some really good points about lobbyists and legislative pay. He's young and I doubt he's making much on the side, so he's really trying to squeak by on the legislative salary which is tiny.

Ed Ableser apparently has no campaign website? I guess he doesn't need one this go around. He was easily the most experienced and knowledgeable. Has strong command of the issues and seemed the most comfortable with the debate. He has impressive credentials, but he misses a lot of time in the Senate, though this likely has a lot to do with the Senate salary requiring an active professional life, his family obligations, and the fact that Democrats don't have much of a voice in the legislature currently.

I expect the Democrats to win easily. I know James Roy personally. He used to be a member of my church congregation. He admitted nerves, early in the debate, but I think he did well all things considering. He says that immigration is his most important issue and I disagree pretty strongly with his position. I'm likely to vote democrat for this race. Sorry James.

Getting Along With Others

I just finished reading remarkable book co-written by a remarkable LDS couple, Terryl and Fiona Givens. The book challenges me to approach my Mormonism in a different way. Each week is my opportunity to offer up my personal gifts in the spirit of true worship and it's my obligation to find my own watering holes outside of church, especially when the church service itself fails to do so.

There are two qualities of Mormonism that make it remarkable and unique: 1) The church is run in large part by a local congregation of unpaid volunteers. 2) These local congregations are organized purely geographically and its members are strongly encouraged to attend the congregation they happen to live. From this membership, the leaders are called, so quality and personalities vary.

This provides a unique opportunity to meet people you might not otherwise meet and it forces global regions to self-bootstrap and to learn how to take care of themselves. A couple of quotes from the book illustrate the power of this approach:

Although not all family relations are idyllic, most are remarkably strong and a primary source for the individual's identity. Surely that is, in part, a function of the cost of individuals pay to make a relationship work. Love is a product of what we put into a relationship. We love our families because of how much we have invested in them, how many times we fought, argued, simmered, and stewed but were forced back to the negotiating table by an unavoidable proximity and by a connection that transcended personal choice. We love that irritating brother and that infuriating sister because we couldn't simply walk away in a moment of frustration. We had to submit to the hard schooling of love because we couldn't transfer to another class with siblings more to our taste.

and

Like Robinson Crusoe on his island, Mormons implicitly recognize that any resource they need to employ for the building of Zion must be found within themselves or their immediate environs, not among more congenial fellow Saints or under the tutelage of more inspiring leaders the next block over. These wards and stakes thus function as laboratories and practicums where we discover that we love God by learning to love each other.

and finally

Certainly it is in the nature of institutions to homogenize disparities, to stifle individualism. But the Creator God of Genesis is a Being who revels in distinctions, difference, and variation, an Artificer who separated man from woman as surely as He severed earth from sky. And love is the spark that fires across the chasm of difference, not the plane of sameness. This is as true of Zion as it is of marriage. The poet Coventry Patmore wrote that the bonds that unite us in community consist 'not in similarity, but in dissimilarity; the happiness of love, in which alone happiness resid[es]...not in unison, but conjunction, which can only be between spiritual dissimilar.'

This got me thinking about how I've fallen short in my church membership over the years.  I've always had an internal drive to live up to my church callings, to really feel like I am a strong contributor in my congregation and to really feel like I could be there to help and uplift. I've always wanted to feel like I was in a congregation that could use me, that appreciated my family, where I felt useful and needed.

But there are times, in this striving, where I mess up, when my personality comes across a bit too strong, or anxious, or annoying. I can certainly relate to the comedian Nathan Fielder who uses a socially awkward personality as a tool for laughs:



The point, here, though is that there will always be people who you will anger or annoy, or people you dread seeing in the hallway because of some past unresolved conflict. This is normal and human. When it's a member of a family, you are forced to deal with it. You just can't pick another family to belong to. Mormon congregations have to a lesser extent, the same dynamic. You can pick up your family and move to another area, but that's not always possible and certainly not easy. Better to learn the art of reconciliation, repentance and forgiveness. Better to face those awkward and difficult moments head-on. Here lies opportunity for growth.

I had this experience recently. Two of my oldest children are in a community children's choir and the director is amazing, pushing the kids, working hard and striving for high musical quality. She also provides some interesting opportunities. Last spring, they had the opportunity to sing the National Anthem at an ASU basketball game. I love basketball, so I took the kids and my other 5 year old daughter to the game. After the anthem was sung, the kids met me so we could watch the game together.

We had to arrive early and I misunderstood my seat number, so we sat in the wrong section. The true owners of our seats arrived late, so we didn't realize our mistake until after the game had begun. They were nice and there were plenty of open seats so they just sat elsewhere. Well, being a little obsessed about correcting my mistakes, at halftime, we got some food and returned to our real seats. Well, of course, someone else was sitting in them, so we took seats nearby those which happened to be directly behind an older couple.

So I had my five year old sit next to me, then my two other children next to her. This put me and my daughter directly behind an older couple. My five year old is short and her legs stick out a bit, precariously close to the man in front's back. I was aware of this fact and sensitive to it, but was hopeful she could constrain herself enough. Besides college stadium seating is packed, I didn't think too much of it. And of course I quickly got absorbed into the game.

After about 10 minutes of this, the man in front just lost it. Here's the exchange as best as I can remember:

• The man, turned around angrily, exclaiming "Look, I just about had enough of this".
• Me to the man: "I'm sorry, I'm sorry". Me to my daughter: "Please be careful with your feet".
• My older daughter to me: "What's going on?"
• Me to my older daughter: "I wasn't totally aware, and my daughter was poking his back".
• The man to me even angrier and louder: "Man, I'm about ready to pop you one."
• Me to the man: "Take it easy, she's only 5."
• The man to me: "Well, how old are you!"
• Me to the man: "Sorry, sorry". We finally move to another seat far away.

Unfortunately for me, the man and his wife also happen to be connected to the choir. After the game, we walked to the parking garage and I noticed he was parked close to where we were parked. And it was packed and busy, so I took the kids to a grassy area far away to play for a long while.

Worse still, we had three more concerts that year, and yes he was at every single one. I would look for him, inevitably find him and try to keep myself situated as far from him as possible. I have effectively banished a stranger from my life.

The new year has arrived and he may or may not be at future concerts (I will never forget his face). But why is it my job to avoid him? Perhaps a better strategy is to engage fully in the choir. And if I run into him again in the future, maybe I don't say hi, but I certainly don't walk in the opposite direction.

Maybe he was having a bad day, perhaps he was dealing with a personal tragedy and just didn't have the patience. It doesn't matter. Dealing with people, day in and day out as we do, there are times when tempers are triggered. It's our job to work through them the best we can and to keep striving for more goodness. And in the future, I will try to be more sensitive to those around me so that my young children are not inadvertently poking my neighbor in the back.