Beach Haven

Last May, my wife Michelle and I were supposed to speak in the King George Virginia Ward of our church. Sadly, they had some sort of sewage issue in the building and church was cancelled that week. The topic was to be about how when we receive a calling or assignment in the church we also receive all the priesthood authority and power that goes along with that calling or assignment. I think perhaps the concern for this topic is that some may feel that if they are not an ordained holder of a priesthood office they are somehow ‘less’. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. A calling or assignment by definition is a delegation of priesthood authority and power.

What is priesthood authority but the freedom to exercise all the rights and responsibilities we have in a given capacity? We find those rights and responsibilities given in the church handbook of instructions and in the scriptures. I can look in the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) as well as in the handbook and find all sorts of definition around my role as a member of the stake high council and as the then stake young men president. Some of these are very specific, others are written with a lot of leeway allowing me to seek revelation and take action without constantly seeking specific guidance from the stake presidency for example. A person who does not hold priesthood office is limited from some delegated authority such as conducting some ordinances, but that does not mean they have no priesthood authority. Even those who do hold priesthood office do so also through delegation and are limited in some things.

What about priesthood power? That’s not the same thing as authority. The authority describes our rights and responsibilities. The power is the capacity to carry them out. The power of the priesthood is God’s power delegated to people in order to serve. Hebrews 11 is an example of a description of what God’s power is. It starts right out explaining that God’s power is faith. Verse 3 reads, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” We can read that as through our faith we come to understand, or that through his faith He did what he did. I would argue both interpretations are true. How did He frame the worlds? By faith! Then the chapter goes on to share a long list of men and women who did great things through faith, which is God’s power shared with them. We can all exercise priesthood power in our callings by exercising faith through acting in our callings to the best of our ability, then having the confidence that the Lord will step in and make up for when (not if) we fall short. This post is a perfect example. I’m sure my words leave much to be desired, yet I have hope that the Spirit will spark within the reader unique thoughts that are much better communicated than anything I might write.

I thought I’d take a stab at sharing ideas around a specific area that has long been an interest of mine. It’s probably fair to say that each of us has had to make decisions based on fewer facts than we would have liked. Even if we have a large amount of data, inevitably we can’t think of every possible effect our decisions have. We stumble along doing the best we can with what we know, and hope things generally turn out for the better (whatever we think ‘better’ means). Some of the results of our decisions are like medical side effects. Most of those side effects seem to be all about potential problems, but sometimes they result in a whole new area of benefit we hadn’t thought of.

Not all ‘unintendeds’ are ‘consequences’. That’s why I will stay away as much as possible from the moniker of ‘unintended consequences’. I’m sure in this new blog thread many of the stories will speak to such consequences, but there are also other unintended areas. For example, in the world of technology where I butter my bread, there are also often unintended uses that result from user experimentation. I supposed one could argue that’s a consequence, but I think of a consequence as an outcome, not as a ‘next step’ such as in the world of technological innovation. In that sense, targets of technology use the artifact in ways designers did not intend. That’s some fancy jargon to say ‘necessity is the mother of invention’.

Like most things I produce, this thread will be something my narcissistic side will create for myself. If someone out there is masochistic enough to follow along, I apologize in advance. Writing has become a sort of cheap therapy for me. If you choose to waste your time with this, think of it as me simply thinking out loud in an attempt to understand something of interest to myself. If that’s not the very definition of egocentric then I don’t know what is.

Let me start with a straight forward example. For years we lived in northern Virginia and I rode a commuter train into Washington DC for work. The train is called the Virginia Railway Express (VRE). From my stop on Brooke Road to Union Station in downtown DC the ride took about an hour. All sorts of people got on and off along the way. For example, it seemed like most riders I got to know were federal government employees of one sort or another. There were many military folks who wore uniforms. Tourists or visiting families were an obvious stand out on some days. People studying college courses of one sort or another could be identified with their books out and laptops busy doing homework. Dress ran the gamut from very casual to very formal.

I usually sat on one of the upper tier seats. You get a better view of the Potomac River from there. One day I noticed a young lady of maybe late 20s or early 30s sitting across from me in a similar seat position. After a while, she pulled out her phone and began staring at it and moving her head in the way one does while taking a selfie video. My old man eyeroll went unnoticed. My judgmental attitude was of course behind it. A few minutes later I glanced back and everything changed. My ‘get off my lawn’ brain had faded and my ‘techie’ brain engaged. She was obviously in the act of applying her makeup in preparation for the work day. Her clothing was quite professional, and everything about her seemed the opposite of my original assumption.

I am quite sure the inventors of the cellphone camera did not imagine themselves to be providing a makeup mirror when they added it to the base product. Yet, here it was. In the world of the swiss-army-knife of electronics, a tech user had managed to remove the jangling burdens piled into her purse by one more item thanks to the unintended use of the cellphone camera. Her makeup mirror has no doubt been relegated to the back of one of her bathroom drawers, and will likely never see the light of day again. A quick scan online these days produces a long list of makeup mirror apps that are downloadable to any 'smart' phone.

​Maybe in a future writeup I'll try to unpack the idea of the phrase 'smart phone'. At least I may have the intention to.

Bibliography
​Vifell, A. C., & Soneryd, L. (2013). Organizing Matters: How 'the Social Dimension' Gets Lost in Sustainability Projects. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 41(2), 104-113.

Review by Michael Beach

The authors examine sociality in sustainability projects from a specific framework of their own design. “We argue that the way sustainability projects are organized will affect how the social dimension is taken into consideration” (Vifell & Soneryd, 2013, p. 104). They describe projects based on three dimensions they call pillars: economic, ecological, and social. They note how organizations often have set project group forms and structures so reflection on whether those set social forms meet project requirements of the task at hand “is a rare phenomenon” (Ibid.). The authors assert that “a practice cannot be fully sustainable until all three dimensions are fulfilled” (Vifell & Soneryd, 2013, p. 106) meaning the three pillars, but they don’t really define the dimensions beyond their basic titles.

In order to examine the social dimension, they examine two case studies in Sweden: The Action Plan 2010 to Increase Organic Consumption and Production of Food Products and A Safe Radiation Environment. The first is a non-governmental campaign by The Ecological Forum to encourage increased ecological food production and a varied agricultural landscape. The second is a government response by The Swedish Radiation Protection Authority to public opposition to increasing 3G cellular services throughout the country of Sweden. Yes, this is about 3G cellular, but remember this study is from 2013.

The authors assume tasks associated with the two case studies are organized into projects, and that the sociality of groups working on the projects are reflected in the group ‘mind-set’. They examine how such mind-sets are defined and incorporated into project teams. The forms of mind-set they define are: open or narrow framing, action orientation, participation, and lastly knowledge gathering and production. The authors spend several pages defining in their own way what they mean for each of these dimensions. The paper then reviews each of the four dimensions are they are exhibited in the two specific cases.

Open/Narrow Framing - In the food production case, certain farming approaches were excluded as they became politically charged in Sweden. As a result, some specific groups advocating these farming approaches were also excluded. This leads the authors of this paper to put the effort more on the side of narrow project scope definition. There was no definition of ‘sustainable’ given as part of the project charter which made this part of the process more on the open side. In the radiation case, social sustainability was never specifically addressed. The points to be addressed by the project were given in a very specific list. The list related to already ongoing projects, so the authors consider that project as operating in a narrower frame.

Action Orientation - This question is couched by contrasting what might be done as opposed to encouragement to do what has already been decided to be done. In the food case, there had been several failed projects previous to this one. The steering group of the first version of this project resigned as a result. The new project focused on moving forward to finish the original plan, so clearly a desire to take some measurable action as a project group and not just encourage others to act. The action, though, was to complete previous decisions, so not necessarily action to come up with new approaches. In the radiation project, the group in charge, called the SSI, came up with a clear project plan that included tasks. Before they even involved other groups, they had an idea of what needed to get done.

Participation - As mentioned above, there were a number of organizations that participated in the agricultural project, but some specific ones with agendas that seemed to be too entrenched on politically hot issues in Sweden at the time were excluded. There was a steering group that headed the project with representation from more than one concerned organization involved in the related topics of encouraging increased food production at all levels. In addition, there were synthesis groups used to gather relevant knowledge. No socially focused group was created as the goal was to find equilibrium between food supply and demand. When the first steering group felt as if they could not meet the goals they dissolved. The second group did not change the focus, but sought to complete the original approach. They felt like the most extreme views were getting in the way of the first steering committee and decided to take out group members with those views to allow progress. In the radiation case, all the participants were officials at SSI so they invited some additional actors with a wide range of perspectives to join the conversation. The idea was to create an approach as “a forum for tuning the suggested measures or new or re-formulated objectives” (Vifell & Soneryd, 2013, p. 110).

Knowledge Production - In the agriculture example, content was produced by the six synthesis groups on various topics. The group indicated a need for some statistics to help inform decisions. As it turned out, industry organizations were skeptical the data could be produced. The second steering committee took the synthesis group reports, tacked them onto the end of the steering committee plan as appendices, then stuck to their own plan. Knowledge was a highly contested issue in the radiation case. Trust in information from specific organizations was deemed suspect by some committee members. The group organized sub-groups to participate in brainstorming sessions on specific topics, noting problems and potential solutions. Later ideas were distilled to more realistic approaches. Since the goal was to reduce or control radiation, in the end, social issues raised were simply declared as out of scope.
​
The paper’s conclusions are helpful if one adopts the specific three sustainability dimensions and the four frames as the authors describe them. It’s one way to try to account for the aimed-for social dimension of the two projects reviewed. It could be more helpful for project teams, such as those involved in the agriculture and radiation projects in Sweden, to include some similar framework in their own up-front project planning. Even if such a project team chooses to ignore social factors on their decisions, at least they would be doing so consciously.

 

About a year ago, my wife and I had a bit of an adventure. We were driving from our home in VA to our other home in GA, moving some of our stuff. She was in our little Subaru pulling our smaller open trailer with parts of our bed in it. I was in the Jeep with the enclosed trailer with a bunch of other furniture. About an hour before the end of our trip I heard a loud bang. I looked in the mirror just in time to see several large chunks of rubber bouncing in the road behind me and other cars swerving to avoid it. There was a loud thumping noise and I knew instantly I had a blown tire. I called my wife on the phone as she was ahead of me so she would pull off the road. I did the same but was able to drive far enough to catch up to her. The rear tire on the driver side was still inflated but there was no tread left on it. I was planning on replacing them all after we got done moving everything in another month as the tread on all of them was getting worn. This just moved up the time schedule. I changed the bad tire with the spare and we got through the rest of the journey with no issue. It cost us nearly $1200 to replace all four tires. There was more damage I needed to fix as well. The back door handle was gone. The rear light on the driver side was shattered. The plastic fender disappeared with the tire parts. The license was gone along with half of the plate holder. The zip-in side canvas window was ripped up. The trailer has a dent in it, but no real damage and I can eventually get in there and hammer the dent back out. I’m glad I have some basic skills to deal with these fairly easy repairs.

Both our cars are getting up there. Her Subaru is a 2018 and already had a little over 100,000 miles on it. My Jeep is a 2010 and just crossed 195,000 miles on this specific trip to GA. Having cars get up there reminds me of an old truck we had back in the day. We bought it when we lived in CA and I was in the Navy. It was a 1974 Ford F-150. We bought it about 1990 and it was pretty beat up. It lasted until about 1996 while we were moving to NE from CO (yes that's CO and not CA). Suddenly, while we were in the middle of NE and a long way from our final destination in Lincoln, all the electrical went out on it. It drove fine, but night was falling and we had no lights. It was full of household effects as part of our move. We decided to stop and stay in a hotel for the night so we could drive the rest of the way in the daylight the next day. That truck had failed bad once before on a trip with the church young men in CO. There was a crack in the manifold and it blew hot air onto the electrical stuff. We were going from our home in Leadville, CO to Lake Powell in southern UT pulling a sailboat and hauling half a dozen young men. We had to be towed the last 20 miles or so and had the garage near the marina fix it while we spent a few days sailing and camping.

That last story is only the latter half of the trials of that trip. We had a Suburban that we had started the trip with and the engine blew up. It cost about $2000 to repair the Suburban and another $500 to fix the F-150. That was by far the most personally expensive church trip I was ever involved in.

That old F-150 inspired a poem. It was showing its age, and so was I, or so it seemed. It makes me laugh now at nearly 60 to think how in my 30s I thought I was getting old. Thankfully for you I won’t make you suffer through reading the poem. In any case, it’s easy at times to think of all the little things in life that seem burdensome. So I’ll leave you with better language from the Master than I could ever muster.

Matthew 11
28. Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

The other day I was considering personal struggles I see in the lives of people I know, and occasionally in my own life. My mind was led to an idea I worked on many years ago. I jokingly called it the ‘faith-o-meter’. The idea is a sort of continuum that spans from no faith on the left, to the prophet Alma’s entreaty to find a “desire to believe”, to having belief. Next comes faith, as in acting on the belief. Then finally at the extreme right I put ‘knowledge’. My positioning ideas on the faith-o-meter continuum is not a political statement. One of the points I came to back then was that we are not always in the same place in the continuum on all things. We might have faith in the Plan of Salvation, a belief in spiritual gifts, and a knowledge of the Law of Tithing. Alma’s faith-as-a-seed sermon speaks about coming to a “perfect knowledge” of “that thing” (Alma 32:34). Where our focus is, there is where we progress from left to right on the faith-o-meter.

So why did this trigger in my mind over the trials I’ve been seeing. In a word, hope. Back when I came up with this faith-o-meter idea I struggled a lot with where hope fits in. There is hope the verb, and hope the noun. For me, hope the verb is weaker, as in ‘I hope it’s true’. In that sense it seems somewhere on the left side of the continuum, maybe between a desire to believe and belief? The noun version, however is something I’ve struggled with for a long time. The word turns up in many places in the scriptures. For me, I’m thinking the noun version is not in one spot along the continuum, but is the outcome of the continuum. The further one moves from no faith, toward ‘a perfect knowledge’, the more hope one has. For example, Alma also says “if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true” (Alma 32: 21). In this case the verb hope means to me that one has hope (noun) as an outcome of faith.

The news of the world and what we see around us in the personal lives of others or ourselves can cause discouragement. That’s the opposite of hope. The phrase that came to my mind in this string of thought was in 2 Nephi 31:20 “Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men.” The verse goes on to talk about enduring.

​I hope each of us stays grounded in the truths of the gospel and we don’t allow the ‘wisdom of the world’ to discourage our faith that leads to a “perfect brightness of hope”. 

I continue a lot of back and forth between DC and GA. One positive about driving all that distance is I get about 10 hours of alone time since I’m almost always by myself. I take advantage of listening. Sometimes that’s the radio. Sometimes it’s a podcast or music. I have a lot of reading for my school so I sometimes download a softcopy of an academic paper or two, then allow my phone to read them to me as I drive. At times I pray and ponder. In those moments I have felt Heavenly Father share some insights that have been important to me, if meaningless to others.

At times both the drive and my listening are interrupted. On one trip, Michelle and I were in separate cars. We occasionally chatted with each other through calls and texts. Don’t worry. We both have the tools we need to do hands-free texting. I would also get messaged from others at work asking about one thing or another. Those communications make the drive less burdensome, but can also interrupt my train of thought, my listening. Yet, sometimes those interruptions themselves can be an answer in one way or another. This particular drive was interrupted twice with backed-up traffic. Once in NC and again just south of Fredericksburg, VA. It was tempting to be grumpy. If we had some sort of deadline I might have been. We had no deadline and neither of us let the backups throw us. Thankfully we didn’t. In both cases the traffic was backed up because of pretty bad accidents. We could see just how bad as we slowly passed by each accident eventually. Clearly, those involved had more to worry about than we did with our minor inconvenience.

Not long after the drive, my stake assignment at the time took me to the King George ward conference. One of the speakers was Sister Avery from the Hartwood Ward. She is the Stake Relief Society President. She is also a bee-keeper. In her talk she noted that she has four hives and something like 40,000 bees. Her operation is small from her perspective. By small, she means her bees produce about 60 pounds of honey in a year. To me that sounds like a lot of honey. But what does it take for the bees to make that amount? Sister Avery described how each honey bee will create only about one-twelfth of one teaspoon of honey throughout its lifespan. The honey each creates is not even for itself, but for the next generation of bees in the hive.

There are a number of lessons this example immediately brings to mind. For Sister Avery, bees represent industry and sacrifice. The conference theme was ‘one work’ meaning any effort we do for others on either side of the veil is all part of the same work. Missionaries are focused entirely on bringing others unto Christ with love, sharing, and an invitation to those who have not yet accepted the gospel. They likely also do some of that same work among less-active members. The other area of focus we should all typically look to is family history and temple work.

Two ideas came to my mind as Sister Avery spoke. One reminder to me was that this is His work. We do our small little part, our one-twelfth of a teaspoon, but it is Him who enables the 60 pounds. The other idea that came to me was how this sort of ratio holds true for us as individuals as well.

2 Ne 25: 23
… “for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.”

Even for ourselves, we do our best, but our efforts are such a small amount compared to what He does for us through His grace. 
​

In a church talk late last year I had an assignment to share something from fall 2021 general conference that particularly touched me. (Yes, I know this is now 2022. I originally wrote this entry a year ago and I’m just now getting it uploaded.) God speaks in all languages. By languages I don’t just mean English or Spanish. I also mean the languages of our thought process. For example, some think in the language of the arts, or of administration, or of science, or of any of the many ‘ologies’ of study. Each discipline of thought has its own language and way of understanding. So too is the language of the gospel, but truth shows up in each of these may disciplines. God speaks to me in several languages, but one of the languages he uses at times is math. The talk by Elder Clark G. Gilbert is an obvious choice as he used math explicitly in his talk about “The Parable of the Slope”.  As true principles turn up over and over again in every discipline, I managed to see math in other talks at conference as well. Since we all think in different languages I believe that is why we have been encouraged to “liken the scriptures unto ourselves.”

The talk I referred to in my talk was the shortest of them. It was President Nelson’s welcome to conference. He said, “I invite you to listen for three things during this conference: pure truth, the pure doctrine of Christ, and pure revelation.” Where is the math in that? Again President Nelson, “Contrary to the doubts of some, there really is such a thing as right and wrong. There really is absolute truth—eternal truth.” Do you hear the math now?

In electrical engineering we often use tools called “truth tables” and “statistical analysis”. In the last quote above both are referred to. A truth table is a list of several independent variables, typically discreet variables such as true/false, on/off, 1/0, yes/no, +5V/-5V, etc. When each input variable is “true” or its equivalent, then the output (dependent variable) is also true. A discreet variable has a limited number of potential values. In the case of electrical truth tables each discreet variable is limited to two states. President Nelson noted two specific examples, right/wrong, truth/error. The idea of error is implied since if there is absolute truth, then anything else is not.  Here is an example of a gospel version of an electrical truth table. If the Book of Mormon is true scripture then Joseph Smith is a true prophet since God would not reveal scripture to a false prophet. If both the Book of Mormon is true and Joseph Smith is a true prophet, then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is His true church since a true prophet would not be the means to establish a false church. You see how that logic form works?

Then what about statistical analysis?  Where was that in the talk? Well, that comes from another form of dependent variable. Instead of discreet variables that have a limited number of values, continuous variables have an infinite number of values between two extremes. Each extreme is referred to as an absolute. There’s that word President Nelson used. The example I used speaking in church was the amount of food I planned on eating at Thanksgiving. One absolute could be zero. I might choose to eat nothing. Well that certainly wasn’t going to happen. The other absolute would be the maximum capacity of my old-man stomach. Between these two absolutes is an infinite quantity of potential food amounts I could consume. I’ll get to where this part fits the gospel in a minute.

I’ve heard people say that Heaven is like the top of a mountain. Any path to the top is ok so long as the goal is the same. I remember many years ago when Adam Savage, one of the hosts on the TV show Myth Busters often wore a shirt that said, “I reject your reality and substitute my own.” In the field of Philosophy of Science a prominent practitioner named Thomas Kuhn coined the idea of scientific paradigms. To Kuhn our current paradigm explaining what we see in nature stands so long as it seems to answer our questions. Eventually we raise questions our current paradigm does not explain. Then, some smart person comes up with another paradigm that does explain our questions and that becomes our new truth until we find more questions the new paradigm does not explain. Each change in paradigm is called a scientific revolution or a paradigm shift. For Kuhn, then, we are not considering truth, or even if the new paradigm brings us closer to truth; only that it seems to answer the questions we have today. A paradigm is a story we tell ourselves, an agreed upon context. 

Are we not blessed with the combination God has given us, the combination of the scriptures and the Holy Ghost? One could argue the scriptures are simply a form of paradigm, but that idea leaves out direct revelation through the Holy Ghost that testifies of truth to each of us in the language God knows we will understand.

So what do the scriptures tell us about truth? Here are a few samples:

• “Straight is the gate and narrow the way”
• “That no man shall come unto the Father but by me, or by my word”
• “I am the way, the truth, and the light”

Many truths or one truth? Many paths or one path? May ways or one way? Truth, the path, is measured as a discreet variable. There is only one absolute truth, one path. Our alignment (our variableness) with that discreet truth is continuous.  We may wander in the space between true and false. Our understanding of truth could be represented as a percent of the whole. Do we have all truth today? No. “We believe all God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” All the gospel we have received is true so the truth of the gospel is 100%. Our understanding individually is between 0% and 100%, and the total truth received through the gospel so far is also between 0% and 100%.
In Star Wars, one of the famous sayings of Yoda was, “do or do not, there is no try.” Does that jive with the scriptures? Such a phrase seems like an attempt to change our performance or understanding from a continuous variable to a discreet variable. In other words, if we fall short by even a little, it is the same as if we have failed completely. Such a philosophy is tempting, but in the world of discreet variables, it is false because it leaves out repentance and the atonement of Jesus Christ. Do we fail to make 100%? Yes, all the time. What are we to do then in gospel terms? When we repent, the grace of Savior moves us from the continuous variable space between truth and error to the discreet of absolute truth. The atonement makes us holy. To be made holy means to be made whole, or complete, or sacred. In every case we fall short on our own, but are made whole through the power that comes from His sacrifice. As with Elder Gilbert’s talk, the trajectory or slope matters, not a particular position along the slope. So using Yoda’s vernacular, alone we ‘do not’. Only with the Savior can we ‘do’.

Pres Nelson stresses this paradigmatic shift from Yoda’s absolutes of self pass/fail to the gospel’s absolutes of fail alone, pass with the Savior. In his talk he said, “There has never been a time in the history of the world when knowledge of our Savior is more personally vital and relevant to every human soul.”
​
So there you have it. Math in what seemed initially to me as a simple welcome-to-conference talk of only about five minutes. As I thought about it, the talk for me had much more depth than it at first appeared.

And so it is. Even something as mundane as mooring a crab boat. We keep our little sailboat in a marina at Solomon’s Island, MD. Today, the normal sleepy routine of the place has been overrun by the 21st Annual Calvert County Watermen's Festival and Boat Docking Competition. Maybe 100 feet or so from our slip there are hundreds of people sitting on temporary aluminum stadium seats cheering for their favorites.

What happens at this sort of event? Fairly large diesel-powered crab fishing boats back into a dock. At the sound of a loud horn, they come roaring out, water flying and black smoke spewing. They leave one slip bow first, move about two slips over, then back into the dock slot. When they toss the requisite lines over specific pylons to make the boat fast to them, another horn blows and the timer stops. When they do well, cheers go up. When a crew member misses the tie-up point while tossing the mooring line with a hula-hoop-sized ring on the end, the crowd expresses pity with the requisite “oh”.

Aside from the bleachers, hundreds more spectators climb over docked and anchored boats of every size and shape. Bikini-clad beauties and beer-bellied men slowly bake in the sun as they indulge in whatever beverage they prefer. At times it seems they pay more attention to their own on-boat parties than to the docking competition.

The competing boats have fun names such as Outlaw, Island Fever, Crab Place, and Miss Julie. It looked like nearly a dozen were competing. I was cheering for Some Beach, given my last name. My baby sister will find this interesting. Some Beach was piloted by a lady with the first name of Crystal. Outlaw and Crab Place seemed crowd favorites as they made the biggest noise, and the biggest waves. They both also tended to get the best times. I noticed there was a paramedic boat strategically placed at the conjuncture between the competing area and the party boats anchored just outside the marina. Smart.

Under Pressure got some positive crowd energy as it was at times piloted by a youngster. I don’t know if Hard to Handle referred to the boat, or perhaps someone associated with her in some way. Crusher was another that tended to make big waves and smoke. Throughout, Big Worm stayed tied up and acted as the judging platform. As time waned, she pulled out and did her own demonstration of quickly exiting one slip, then backing into another. She has the right name. Big Worm is easily twice the size of the others and painted a very bright neon green.

The atmosphere was definitely festive. The competition seemed real, but friendly. The same dock where the events were happening is well-known to the boat captains. Most mornings I see a predawn ritual happen when the crowd is nowhere to be seen. Boats pull up to meet a seafood truck. They offload their crabby cargo, then head out. I don’t know if they go right back out for daytime harvesting, or are just heading home at that hour. The same ritual happens at other times of the day as well so I suspect there is some sort of rotation for offload times.

On this comfortable September Sunday afternoon in a small touristy fishing and sailing town, an American microcosm is on display. We can make just about anything into a fun competition… and an excuse for a party.
​

Bibliography
Hwang, Bon-Gang, and Wei Jian Ng. 2013. "Project Management Knowledge and Skills for Green Construction: Overcoming Challenges." IEEE Engineering Management Review (IEEE) 41 (2): 87-103.
 
In the world of the project management industry a long-standing question exists. How much knowledge about the technical aspects of the specific project is necessary for the project manager to have? Another way of asking this is, can anyone with project management skills tackle any project in an industry where they have little to no experience? On one hand, project team members are the subject-matter experts (SMEs) and so the project manager should be able to rely on their perspectives. At the same time, perhaps team members have incentives to be less than forthcoming in areas of a project where they hold some responsibility for outcomes. In that case one could argue that a Project Manager (PM) might act as their own SME instead of blindly trusting team input. The compromise scenario is in between where shared expertise can lead to better decision making, as in two heads are better than one. In the reviewed article the authors attempt to help answer this expertise tension by examining a specific kind of project that requires a great deal of specific technical knowledge, that of green construction.

Construction in general is a technical endeavor, but green projects add a layer of technical requirements that inevitably add complexity and cost. Not all construction companies have the knowhow to fulfill these additional requirements such as building designs that include Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards.

In examining PM roles in green construction projects, the authors considered ways to score individual PM performance in terms of “social skills, decision-making skills, problem-handling skills, ability to recognize opportunities, and management of changes as key personal attributes affecting project success” (Hwang and Ng 2013, 87). They compared scores in these and other areas with experience in the specific project industry wondering if these PM competency scores might correlate in some way.
​
Among other results, the authors note relative importance among PM skills and techniques. As one might guess, their findings were mixed. They looked at 39 knowledge and skill areas in a pre-survey questionnaire. The result was ranking then selecting the top 20 “for the main survey” (Hwang and Ng 2013, 93). They then invited construction companies in Singapore to evaluate various PM performance experiences. “Ultimately, a total of 52 completed survey questionnaires were received, tabulated and analyzed” (Ibid.). Beyond the surveys, their industry literature review “revealed that the project managers may face challenges such as higher costs on green construction projects and that there are elevated risks due to different forms of project delivery and lengthy planning and approval process for new green technologies and materials” (Hwang and Ng 2013, 99). Their primary conclusion of the survey analysis was “that there are specific knowledge areas that should be strengthened in order to effectively manage green construction projects” (Hwang and Ng 2013, 100). The data showed that increased knowledge of the PM did not replace the need for SMEs, but performance increased when a given PM was not completely reliant on team SME perspectives. There is project outcomes benefit to industry specialization in project management.

I hope my mind is at least sometimes turned to counting blessings. Life for my wife and I has lately been turbulent. I’m not referring to what is going on out there in the world, though that is clearly turbulent. I’m more referring to the addition of occasionally moving household goods through a 10-hour drive while continuing our normal hectic life. Despite the added weight on our shoulders (literal and figurative) we continue to do what we need to. We can feel the Lord carry us on particularly difficult days. How much more of a blessing need one to be grateful for?
 
Recently, I have been talking with a long-time friend of mine. He lives in New Mexico. His life has taken a difficult turn, and he is really struggling with seeing anything positive. In particular he asked me an interesting question. “What have I done to deserve all this?” One can read this question in to opposite ways. The first could be a person honestly willing to admit they have something for which to repent, but they are simply unaware what it is. Such a question can also be understood as an inverse statement. The person may be lashing out with the thought that they have no culpability. The question-statement may simply mean, “I don’t deserve this.”  

The conversation brought to my mind two examples in the scriptures that depict each of these sentiments. The negative example comes from The Book of Mormon. Nephi accounts of a typical reaction of his brothers after being admonished: 

2 Nephi 4:13 
And it came to pass that not many days after his death, Laman and Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael were angry with me because of the admonitions of the Lord. 

There are plenty of similar examples all over the scriptures. At the heart of this negative reaction to criticism (justified or not) is pride.  

Now think of an opposite example. During the last supper, Jesus told the apostles that one of them would betray him. How did their reaction differ from that of Laman and Lemuel? 

Matthew 26:20-22 
Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as he did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? 

This reaction is humble, not prideful. Each considered if under some condition they might become a traitor. Each was willing to recognize his own weakness.  

How do we react when confronted with something within ourselves that could use change? Another word for change is repentance. I can only speak for myself. At times I channel my inner Laman and Lemuel. Other times I lean more toward the attitude of the apostles. Maybe in some experiences I’m some of both of these at the same time. Perhaps our efforts to focus on our blessings rather than our challenges helps us to be more humble. I’m not saying we only suffer because of our own guilt. I am saying we sometimes do, and should be willing to at least consider the question… is it I? ​
​

In several articles National Geographic authors describe various topics connected with slavery and the ship known as the Clotilda. This particular ship is noted because it was the last ship to bring enslaved people from Africa to the United States. The final voyage was after a law was past that made it illegal to bring new slaves to this country, though the law at that point did not make slavery itself illegal. The ship owners and crew were obviously aware they were breaking the law because they offloaded their cargo in clandestine ways. As soon as they did, they sailed her up a river where they burned and sank the ship.

The series of articles includes depictions of the technology of the ship Clotilda itself. There is a series of maps (another form of technical knowledge) depicting slave-ship routes and numbers of enslaved people forced along each of the routes between Africa and various parts of North America, South America, Central America, and the Caribbean. For example, the map shows how mainland North America received 307,000 slaves directly. At the same time over 4 million were taken to the Caribbean, many later were moved into North America, or the products they created directly benefited North American people. The map shows around 3.8 million were sent to mainland South America, with perhaps similar North American benefit. One other bit of technology I’d like to mention is the use of modern underwater tools to find and document the final whereabouts of the Clotilda. Underwater archaeology was not really possible to any extent even in the early part my lifetime. Here we are today with sophisticated imaging to find anomalies that we can then directly approach and explore in the water environment.

Archives and media are other forms of communication technology here. Sales of humans were documented, but so were the aftermath events to the people who were Clotilda victims. This issue of the National Geographic magazine describes the lives of some of them after emancipation, and their efforts to settle a new town that still exists today. Africatown, AL still has buildings built by its founders, many of whom were Clotilda survivors and their descendants.

As one who studies societal effects of technology and technological effects by social issues, I’m reminded by this series of stories how human aims drive technical development for well or ill. Acts of both evil and good were facilitated by and inspired creation of specific forms of technology. These kinds of stories remind me why the ideas of technological determinism are relegated to former thought, and themes of co-production are more generally accepted. Specific technical expression is not inevitable, but influenced. Social choice is not driven by technical advances, but both change each other. For example, despite all our access to online texts, when we lost electrical power in our home this past winter my hands and eyes turned to hard-copy. When I spend long hours in a car my ears turn to the same content through hands-free connectivity. These options and their use came to be by choice and the inspiration of necessity. None of that technical expression was inevitable.

Bibliography
Bourne, Joel K. 2020. "Cruel Commerce." National Geographic, February: 52.
—. 2020. "Saving Africatown." National Geographic, February: 61-65.
Brasted, Chelsea. 2020. "Owning the Past." National Geographic, February: 66-67.
Diouf, Sylviane. 2020. "Journey of No Return." National Geographic, February: 53-55.
 

Autumn is my favorite time of the year. Maybe it’s because I can identify as I’m in that part of life, but the cooling of temperatures somehow feels refreshing to me. The days grow shorter which means my running workout tends to be in the dark more and more (early morning or after dinner). Michelle and I are beginning the process of moving back to our home in Georgia. For us this will be a long process over some months. We’ll have to endure some separation. We’ve been through it many times over the years. Since our marriage we moved six times (this will be number seven) which has always involved some separation. My work has also taken me away from family often, occasionally for extended periods. This move feels more real now as when we arrived at the house in Georgia it was for all intents and purposes empty. We are taking advantage of the emptiness to update some wall colors and repair a thing or two.

Change is something we’ve grown accustomed to, but it is still challenging. When the future seems unsure to us we can fret. This is definitely where faith comes into play. Despite the challenge and fretting associated with change, it’s also brought some incredible growth for me personally, and for both Michelle and I as a family. I will leave comment on how the moves were for our children up to them to say. It all seems to me like a mixed bag, like everything else about life.

Some of my favorite cartoons over the years have been the Calvin and Hobbes series. Interestingly enough, as part of my post graduate studies I’ve learned that both of those names belong to well-known philosophers of science. Fitting that a recurring series within the cartoon has involved scenes where Calvin (a rebellious young boy) and Hobbes (a stuffed tiger that is alive in the eyes of Calvin) are streaming out of control down a deadly mountain (usually in a wagon or on a snow sled). As they careen toward certain destruction they nonchalantly discuss some philosophical idea or another, usually punctuated by a horrendous crash. There’s something to be said for this pattern, though generally I tend to philosophize post catastrophe as I try to make sense of whatever just happened. I won’t claim to succeed very often, if at all, in making sense of things. Like Calvin and Hobbes, I think it’s fair to say most of my personal catastrophes tend to be self-inflicted. I have plenty of scars to attest. I generally refer to my scars (seen and unseen) as ‘stupid marks’. I guess we all learn in our own way. I don’t know about you, but my learning process seems mistake-driven by and large. The mistakes are generally my own, though not always.

Moving offers an opportunity for clarity. Do I really need all these things? There is so much in the house that needs to just be tossed. I scratch my head and wonder why we have some of this stuff in the first place, and why we persist on holding on to much of it. There has been some therapeutic value in removing some of the clutter of life. If nothing else, clearing things out brings back a pleasant memory or two as we sift through the accumulation. How much clutter do we all carry in our inner person? Are there things we should just leave behind? Are there others we should cling to in order to stay grounded in testimony, in identity, in family?

Here is at least one example of something of inestimable value to cling to:

1 Nephi 8:24
And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree.

The iron rod is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Search for those things of value to hold. Let go of those that do not add value to your life.
​

Bissonnette, Andréanne. 2020. ""Caged Women": Migration, Mobility and Access to Health Services in Texas and Arizona." Journal of Borderlands Studies 1-22.
 
Andréanne Bissonnette described to us the concept of the ‘golden cage’. It’s a zone from the US and Mexico border internal within the first 100 miles inside the US side of the border. Within that zone there are numerous checkpoints. Within the golden cage, presumed migrants can be stopped and questioned without probable cause. If a migrant attempts to leave the zone they risk running the checkpoints, yet healthcare is essentially impossible for them within the area.
 
Bissonnette also pointed out that healthcare is difficult outside the golden cage for a host of reasons. Many lack of insurance. Fear of accessing healthcare, lack of language skills, and fear of having their immigration status checked at a clinic are examples of difficulties. Many immigrants are often unaware of where to access medical care. They may believe they need insurance for COVID vaccine.
 
Location matters. There are different laws from one state to another. Despite what laws exist in a given state, application of laws varies among locations within a state. Hesitancy by migrants to access healthcare could cause them to wait until a health issue becomes acute, putting increased strain on trauma centers and emergency rooms in locations with high migrant populations.
 
One area of a conversation I attended with Bissonnette was about how healthcare might encourage circular migration. On either side of a border different types of healthcare are available. For example, some medicines may require a prescription on one side and not the other. If an immigrant has a US social security number (their own or one they have assumed) they may be able to better access some aspects of healthcare on the US side of the border. With or without it, there may be better access on the Mexican side to other types of healthcare. An immigrant may be motivated to live closer to the border if they have healthcare needs that would be better addressed on the Mexican side.
 
I’d like to combine the ideas of healthcare and circular migration to question the concept of the golden cage. In class I shared my experience working in a high-end hotel while an undergraduate student. Much of the housekeeping and janitorial staff at the time were Hispanic. One day the US immigration services (‘la migra’) showed up at the hotel in force. They went through the hotel checking identification for Hispanic staff. This was well outside the golden cage region so they must have had some sort of warrant based on previous investigation, or at least one would hope that was the case. I saw the officers load about a dozen young male Hispanics into a large van waiting outside the hotel about an hour after they first entered the building. I had been friends with many of those taken away, often practicing speaking Spanish with them.
 
Several weeks passed, then suddenly these same employees were back working at the hotel in the same jobs they had been taken from. I asked several of them what had happened. Their answers were all the same. The US immigration officers had transported them back to Mexico City. From there they used their own money to visit family for a few weeks, then made the same journey they previously had in crossing the border into the US and back to the hotel. Management at the hotel allowed them to resume their jobs using the same documentation previously on file with Human Resources. One could question that management ethic, yet it is likely not unique to this specific employer. Clearly this was a circular migration. The original migration to the US was economic-based. The migration back to Mexico was forced. The return to the US was again economic. They were obviously not limited in mobility by the idea of the golden cage.
 
How about healthcare? The hotel did offer health insurance to full-time employees. I have no idea if any of these young men were full-time or part-time, but with whatever documentation offered to the hotel that was good enough for employment, one would presume the same documentation was good enough for the employer to provide the insurance benefit. It’s clear this same documentation was not good enough for immigration service officers. At the same time, one could imagine that young healthy people with no healthcare mandate as we have today might simply opt out of health insurance, perceiving no need as so many other young people do.
 
Given this experience, it’s clear there are reasons for circular migration that are completely unrelated to healthcare. In fact, healthcare in my example likely played no part of migration in either direction, and may have had nothing to do with the thoughts of these migrants.
 
In the case of these particular young immigrants, the checkpoints of the golden cage were basically meaningless. They were able to easily circumvent them at least twice. The fact that so many who cross the border illegally end up in literally every part of the US is itself evidence that checkpoints are not effective in containing migrants within the 100-mile zone. In this sense, perhaps healthcare does act as some incentive for migrants who feel a need to access clinics south of the border. Mobility may be possible for longer distances from the border, but likely becomes more difficult as distance from the border increases. If this is true, the golden cage might be less about being ‘trapped’ by check points and more about the cost and time required to voluntarily engage in circular migration for healthcare purposes, or any other motivation.
 
One related point, as many migrant workers have some documentation, valid or not, which allows them to work, they can also share their earnings as remittances to family in their home country. That may also mean they manage a bank account that allows them to transfer money. In the case of my former hotel associates, having a bank account would have facilitated accessing funds from within Mexico needed to return to the US. That same money and documentation, one could presume, could permit them to access healthcare outside the golden cage. This particular community was close knit. Most were bilingual. It’s very likely they shared information with each other on how and where they could best access healthcare if needed. The bilingual skill was not true for all of them, and there are plenty examples of migrants who don’t speak English, but I wonder how strong the language impact is. So long as some of the community can research on behalf of others, the language barrier may be less impactful. In the case of long-term migrant residents where their children grow up in the US, children become the interpreter on behalf of their non-English-speaking parents. I have seen this over the years where fairly young migrants must help their parents navigate a number of services. This can reverse family dynamics by reversing family roles.
 
My conclusion is the idea of a golden cage may be less impactful than Bissonnette’s research suggests. It’s true my logic is based on anecdotal experience and may be lacking, but the experience is real and not isolated.

In August my wife and I were both asked to speak in our sacrament meeting in the Aquia Ward. We were to discuss how we as a people need to be united, and with less conflict. Given all that is going on around us, I understand the motivation our bishopric felt in making that assignment.

Our ward is quite unique in that we have a diverse membership. We have people who don’t speak English as a first language. Aside from the US, our members hale from Africa, Latin America, the Pacific Islands, the Caribbean, and Asia. We have members who have experienced military and judicial conflict. All of us experience interpersonal conflict from time to time. In my talk I shared a story about a close family member who went through months of interpersonal conflict with a member of their ward many years ago. Happily, they had a solid relationship with a home teacher who had been diligent with them for many years. This home teacher was able to help resolve the differences. I am very grateful for this dedicated home teacher. Just a few months after all was resolved, the other person involved in the conflict died. Had this home teacher not acted as a peace-maker the people involved would not have become reconciled.

The Joseph Smith translation of Matt 7 reads:

• 1 Judge not (unrighteously), that ye be not judged.
• 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

My experience has taught me that in most disputes neither side is totally right or wrong. It’s more likely that all parties bear some responsibility in a conflict. I read a caution in the above scripture. I can judge a circumstance completely true, and yet judge people involved harshly. Should I feel justified in harshness if someone is actually guilty of something? Should I show leniency? Justice or mercy? I believe the Lord allows us our agency here, but warns that our approach to how we perceive others will color how we ourselves will be viewed when our time comes to make our accounting for this life. Temporal things are by definition temporary. It’s true some things in this life have eternal consequences. Do we plead for God to pour out justice on others while at the same time beg for mercy upon ourselves? That seems like a double standard. Another word for double standard is hypocrisy. 

Moses 1

• 39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

If this is God’s work, then what is ours? Should it not be to focus on this same goal? God doesn’t say he seeks the condemnation of his children. If this is so, then neither should we.

From the Sermon on the Mount in Matt 5:

• 7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
• 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

I hope that I can emulate that home teacher from all those years ago who was a peacemaker through his diligence and love. I hope that I will be strong enough to seek mercy for others, and allow God to determine when justice is called for. I don’t mean we should not acknowledge wrongs or work to make this life better. We have public institutions to do the work of justice. I do mean that if I am here to learn to be like Heavenly Father, it seems the more difficult attribute to gain is mercy rather than justice. Offering mercy lowers conflict and encourages repentance from what I’ve seen over the years. Seeking justice tends to encourage defensiveness and increases conflict. There is a balancing act here. We are justified to defend ourselves from the hurtful actions of others, yet we need to find a way to allow God to have the ultimate say on culpability.
​

Foucault, Michel. 2008. ""Panopticism" from Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison." Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts (Indiana University Press) 2 (1): 1-12.
 
​One of Foucault’s central arguments about the motivation for a panopticon is that a facility (prison, hospital, school, etc.) could be open to the public for random ‘inspection’. Proponents suggest this approach could counter the risk of a ‘Potemkin village’. One obvious counter is the practicality of actual inspection. All of those environments are intended to be secure either from or for those inside.

Foucault’s work was published in 1975. Technology has changed dramatically since then. Although the physical domains he spoke about remain, much of security is more about the virtual domain today. Many government and financial institutions stress the need to monitor (surveil?) in a global version of a virtual panopticon. We all now wonder, who is watching us through online technology, or when, or how? Are we at risk of violence from the other ‘inmates’? Will someone enter our virtual ‘hospital room’ to hold our ‘treatment’ hostage?

It seems as if one could make the argument that in our current state-of-the-art, all the same arguments for and against the physical panopticon exist. Those in power can justify ever-increasing levels of intrusion in the name of security. Those out to take advantage of the vulnerable constantly look for ways around the system. Most of us are less versed about the technological means and must make a decision between varying levels of security, access to services, and freedom. Another direction could be to opt out of online life. Like the Potemkin village, that is becoming less and less an option. As physical businesses become ever more virtual (or at least hybrid physical/virtual) our ability to remain ‘old-school’ (offline) continues to decrease. Pandemics also discourage use of cash in favor of a third-party account.

At the end of June, I was able to help the Stake YM Presidency run a two day Aaronic Priesthood Encampment. Because of COVID we were asked to keep the camp local to prevent a long drive. We were also asked to make the camp a series of day-camps to eliminate overnight tent camping. So we did. We managed to offer two long days that included canoeing/kayaking, rifle/shotgun shooting, archery, geocaching, service projects, and competitions. At the end of the first night, each ward met separately and the bishops had time to hold a fireside discussion with their own youth. On the second night, the stake presidency came to camp and offered an inspirational fireside for the entire camp. We had nearly 200 campers including youth and leaders. As far as I can tell the boys enjoyed the camp. The front room in our home holds a number of lost-and-found items.

For camp we focused on the 2021 youth theme: A Great Work.

Doctrine and Covenants 64: 33-34

• 33 Wherefore, be not weary in well-doing, for ye are laying the foundation of a great work. And out of small things proceedeth that which is great.
• 34 Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days.
  

There certainly are many ideas to unpack here. ‘Be not weary’ speaks to my experience from time to time. We each need to find a balance to keep being about His work ‘in well-doing’ without burning out. ‘Out of small things’ feels like a fair description of me and my efforts. We tried to stress to the young men that we are the small things bringing about a great work, but we ourselves are the great work. Our immortality and eternal life is God’s ‘work and glory’.

The idea of a ‘willing mind’ is close to my personal thoughts. From my limited perspective, our personal will is the only thing we have that is truly our own. Everything else we have, including our agency, is a gift from Heavenly Father. Our will is our own. Everything else we might ‘sacrifice’ would be only returning to God that which He gave to us in the first place. For example, our time is measured. We have no idea how much we have in this short life, but we know it will eventually end. Our money we earn, but only by using the gifts of health, personal talents, the political and economic environment we live in, and the culture we are raised in as a few examples. Agency is another area to consider. There was a time that I thought of my agency as mine, but actually my agency has been given to me. We all have agency, but with limitation imposed by both earthly and heavenly powers. Our choices with the agency given to us often removes future agency. Every person sitting in prison has much less freedom to exercise agency than those of us not in that circumstance. People whose choices led them to physical or mental health issues have lost some agency as well.

I’m sure each of us can gain much more from a study of these two verses. One note about an experience that brought me some pleasure at camp. The events were held at two separate locations, The Accakeek Sportsman Club, and the Virginia Outdoor Center. Aside from participating in activities, the youth participated in service projects at both locations. Staff and leaders of both places repeatedly told us how impressed they were at the way the boys acted during the event, and how well they worked during the service portion of camp. It was clear the boys’ actions spoke to camp staff. They were doing very good missionary work. All the staff from both facilities understood what our organization is and which church we are a part of. 
​

My aunt Marqueen Kitta joined the church a few years ago, a short time after my mother, her sister, passed away. Marqueen has a wonderful conversion story, but it is her's to share. I learned the whole thing not from her but from Caden Judd. He was one of the missionaries who helped teach and eventually baptize her. Caden went with us to the temple. As it turns out, he was working in the Virginia Beach area for the summer so we shared a ride to Philadelphia. His missionary companion was Brigham Taylor who was also able to join us in the temple. He and his father visited his brother in New York City, then drove south to join us. My sister Lisa was also able to fly out from Utah to be there. Marqueen was joined by a sizable group from the Berwick Ward where she attends church. We were sixteen people in all.

Because of the pandemic, it has been more than a year since my wife and I have been able to step foot into The House of the Lord. We of course have attended church in our local chapel, but the temple is unique for its sacredness. As Marqueen made covenants in the ordinances, I had the privilege to act on behalf of her husband, Uncle Joe, who died some time ago. Later she was sealed to Joe, then to her parents, my grandparents. Finally, Joe was sealed to his parents. The previous generation’s work had already been done by my mother before she passed away two years ago.

Attending the temple is always a wonderful, sacred experience. In the temple one is much more open to promptings of the Spirit, at least I find that true for me. I think that is because it is a set apart space reserved completely for making sacred covenants, and we were there to give service for those who cannot make covenants for themselves. For me this is the epitome of acting as saviors on mount Zion. Likewise, when we go to the temple, we go setting aside worldly things. That attitude alone puts us closer to God.

My wife and I have some fairly large and looming decisions we are weighing. We entered the temple believing we had the answer to at least one of the questions about our future. Both of us were comforted in the temple that we had made the right decision. We also were able to articulate for ourselves remaining questions, and a plan to follow as well to clarify the answers in order to seek additional confirmations.
​
How blessed we were to be invited to join Aunt Marqueen at the precise time we were feeling inspired to make some of these decisions about our future. It is yet another testimony to me that God is in the details of our life whether we recognize or acknowledge it or not. He wants to help us if we will let Him.  

Ihde, Don. 2009. "A Phenomenology of Technics." In Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 76-97. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

In Don Ihde’s work A Phenomenology of Technics, he proposes three specific variants describing the relationship of humans with the world by way of technology. One central argumentative claim Ihde proposes is that humans have no relationship with the world except in relation with technology.

If interaction with the world involves anything manipulated by humans beyond the natural naked body, and one considers everything manipulated by humans beyond the natural naked body as technology, then Ihde has a point. He seems to contend that anything manipulated in order to shield one from the elements, or extend natural human ability is technology. There could be an argument made against such an assumption in that a natural part of humans is an intellect that leads to the creation of shielding or ability-extending devices.

Ihde claims that as technology becomes less demanding, less interactive, then it becomes a lesser part of human life. What about when we are not using more demanding tech? What about any tech at all when not viewed as separate from who or where we are? Could the human-technology-world relationship variants include another where the parentheses encompasses all three? Is there a time when people don’t view the world through tech or as tech, but rather humans and tech and the world are all wrapped into one, not separate? If people see themselves immersed in both technology and the world, they perhaps see themselves as integrated with both (like a fish in water?). In this view, whatever shape the tech and the world have become in a person’s individual life, the relationships are not separate. For example, a person is hiking the Appalachian Trail and simultaneously checking their position on a GPS map (or paper map for that matter). In some ways the person is experiencing nature through the hiking clothes, the trail, the map, the GPS, and the smart phone with the map and GPS. At the same time, they are out in nature, and taking in the sights, sounds, smells, and textures.  Does that mean that the person has a relationship with the natural world and the socially-constructed world separately at the same time?

In May I had a speaking assignment in the Garrisonville Ward as one of my duties on the Stake High Council. The stake presidency asked those of us speaking this month to address the following:

Doctrine & Covenants 50:24
"That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day".

There are so many areas related to this scripture. I have thought about the idea of light for many years. The specific angle they have asked us to address related to this scripture is this:

Our Stake President characterized the speaking assignment topic as:

• "Staying away from the fringes" relative to church doctrine. The topic is intended to remind members of the safety that comes from a study of the doctrine in the standard works, messages in various forms from modern day prophets and other inspired church leaders.  You have the flexibility to present the topic as dictated by the spirit. As you see fit, it would be good to remind members to seek inspiration from the Lord when there are questions, and local church leaders as needed.

I have often thought of this issue as well. Over the years I have seen many members get attached to what I call their ‘pet topic’. I’m all for continued study, swimming deeply in the doctrines of Christ. In fact, just this past general conference we heard encouragement from President Nelson to face challenges through learning and faith. He said:

• Your mountains may be loneliness, doubt, illness, or other personal problems. Your mountains will vary, and yet the answer to each of your challenges is to increase your faith. That takes work. Lazy learners and lax disciples will always struggle to muster even a particle of faith.
  

At times I wonder if I am a ‘lazy learner’. Adding light onto light will cause our knowledge to grow. So how to reconcile these two ideas of adding knowledge without being overly focused on some specific obscure matter of doctrine? Esoteric ideas may seem interesting, and may help to fill what we perceive as areas of weakness within our understanding. Here is the caution I guess that strikes me. As I listen to the prophets and apostles, and review typical lesson material published by the church, topics tend to be focused on the essential saving doctrines and principles of the gospel. Why is that? I would argue it’s because we are all at different places in our building of line-up-line, precept-upon-precept. Our personal learning journey is different than the journeys of others. God teaches each of us in the language and timing that is best for us individually. I would argue, that’s why in group settings we keep to the essential saving doctrines and ordinances. It keeps us grounded in common truth, and the Spirit is able to touch our hearts.

Another thing I have noticed over the years is how sometimes people expounding what they perceive as ‘deeper’ understanding can at times appear to do so in a form of self-aggrandizement. Perhaps I see it in others because I myself need to be careful not to share in order to display some sort of self-perceived ‘greater wisdom’. In my case it’s more likely self-delusional. When this approach happens, say in a Sunday School class, it can lead to confusion or even conflict. I’d guess this to be true for one or both of two reasons. It may be that the ideas are correct, but not everyone has been led down the same instructive path as the sharer. As I mentioned earlier, God teaches each of us in a way and time that is best for us, and our individual paths of learning are not identical. Our knowledge base will be different, not greater or lesser, just different. The other reason confusion may enter this sort of conversation could be because the Spirit won’t testify if either the ideas are wrong, or the person speaks with poor intent.

I believe personal gospel perspective can be categorized in at least three groups (there are likely more): doctrine and principles, tradition, or personal speculation. Sometimes we may be tempted to mix these up, confuse one for another. General church leaders always speak from doctrine and principles. Tradition can include how we do things. Personal speculation, though perhaps coming from a place of wanting to understand, yet may still be just that, speculation.

Light itself is truth, and opens our eyes to (illuminates) other truth. Life is short. We can be best strengthened by basic truths that are essential for making and keeping saving covenants. We are best strengthened by truths that grow faith. I believe we should gain as much light as we can, but be willing to trust Heavenly Father enough to accept we don’t need to learn everything in this life, nor are we capable of doing so. I recognize the tension between these ideas of increasing light while not putting our energy into topics that, though interesting, are not critical to salvation and exaltation.

2 Nephi 9
28. O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
29.  But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

I guess what I’m trying to say is we should seek guidance from the Spirit in how to spend our precious learning time. Why we learn is just as important as what we learn. Let us do all things for the glory of God. In the Beach family motto, knowledge is only one of the three requirements for gaining wisdom.

Early in April was not only Easter, but also the Sunday of general conference for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thanks to technology we were able to simultaneously attend despite distance and time difference. This wasn’t true for me when I was serving a proselyting mission. I was in southern Spain in 1982 and 1983. There was no internet. On conference weekend we had no local meetings, but also could not listen to, much less watch, general conference. We had to wait a month or so when a Spanish version of church magazines arrived in the homes of some local members who were able to share. While that sounds at least partially promising, in reality we simply didn’t get access to conference materials while in the mission. Now, my normal approach to conference is to watch it live on the Internet, then over the interim six months between conferences I listen to the talks one at a time. When they come all at once there is a strong spirit, but I think I miss much of the meaning. Reviewing them individually over time helps me gain more insight. 

Following that process, in March I was listening to President Russel M. Nelson’s message titled Embrace the Future with Faith. In part of that talk the prophet referred to Captain Moroni from The Book of Mormon. President Nelson reminded us how in times of peace Captain Moroni continued to help the people to prepare against future military conflict with the Lamanites. “Even when things went well, Captain Moroni continued to prepare his people. He never stopped. He never became complacent. The adversary never stops attacking. So, we can never stop preparing! The more self-reliant we are—temporally, emotionally, and spiritually—the more prepared we are to thwart Satan’s relentless assaults".

I remember taking a Philosophy 101 course as an undergraduate so many years ago. The professor expressed disdain for religion because of its ‘other-worldliness’. Essentially, his beef was that we 'religious people' don’t make good ethical or moral decisions because we are not focused on the here-and-now. We make decisions based on some future expected outcome. Instead of ‘fixing’ issues in front of us, he argued, we are willing to suffer and allow suffering because we hope someday God will make it all better later. That may be partially true, but this line of thinking defines a false dichotomy. It assumes actions taken can only have immediate effect or later effect. Even if this line of reasoning acknowledges present and future effects, the position is that we who are making these decisions are only thinking about this life or the next. 

Interestingly enough, similar thoughts are expressed in several of the Star Wars movies as Yoda teaches Jedi principles to several apprentices. From The Empire Strikes Back Yoda refers to Luke while speaking to the ‘spirit’ Obiwan, “A Jedi must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind. This one a long time have I watched. All his life has he looked away…to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm? What he was doing.” Modern philosophical schools might refer to this idea of being in the present by the word mindfulness. Yet despite this focus on the present, Yoda expresses a need to make decisions. He concedes we are each in charge of our future through decisions we make today. In Star Wars Rebels he says, “Your path you must decide.” To make a decision, by definition, implies consideration of a future outcome. Again in Star Wars Rebels Ezra asks “Which is the right way?” Yoda’s answer? “The wrong question that is.” He explains how the journey is to decide.

My experience is that the gospel is all about deciding now for immediate circumstances, and understanding that one must look ahead. How do we do that? For me, the long-term is more about a way to live, a mindset. The immediate decisions are about navigating present circumstances (not ignoring them), but those decisions are also guided with our long-term goals in mind. In this way we can be both mindful, in the present, and guided by an eternal perspective. Referring again to the ideas of that professor, I take issue with his false dichotomy that one cannot simultaneously think of both the present and future in making decisions. His perspective is clearly atheistic. In fact he specifically stated such. I get it then. If one believes, as he did, that when we die we simply cease to exist, then there is no incentive to contemplate beyond the handful of years we have here in this short slice of time. In that form of philosophy we should be moral only because we all benefit when we all live a moral life. If we all agree not to hurt one another than each is protected from others. This is morality in the present for personal present benefit, not for present benefit and benefit in the world to come. It assumes that all our motivation is selfish. We look for immediate or post-mortality reward, and this is our only motivation. What a pessimistic view! In President Nelson’s quote above there is the consideration of immediate action by an adversary, Lucifer. If one does not consider that ever-present threat, then one is ignoring the present, not responding to it. 

Our hoped-for motivation should be less about self-benefit, and more about love. My favorite section of scripture is 1 Corinthians 13. This chapter defines charity which is the pure love of Christ. The pure love of Christ is our pure love toward Christ, and our pure love toward others like the love of Christ toward us. Charity is not about what actions we take, but rather about our motivation. Verse 11: “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” Our philosophy professor friend assumed self-centered motivation. Does that not seem like a childish way of thought? Let us put aside childish things. Let us be motivated by love. Let us keep in mind both the present and the long-term future. Let us be both mindful of the world where we now are, and other-worldly as we consider eternity. 

​

Vallor, Shannon. 2015. "Moral Deskilling and Upskilling in a New Machine Age: Reflection on the Ambiguous Future of Character." Philosophy of Technology (28): 107-124.

Shannon Vallor links the use of automation through technology with a loss of ‘traditional’ moral values in the form of moral deskilling. I wonder if really the phenomenon is less about moral deskilling, and more about moral reskilling. Does an adjustment of morals exist with any technology, not just those described as ‘new’ or ‘automation’? Here is what I mean. There exists an argument from the likes of popular personality Mike Rowe which says that working with one’s hands is just as valuable as working with one’s mind (https://www.mikeroweworks.org/). This version of the Vallor argument is about equal value. For Rowe, value is linked to individual pay, but also a kind of mindset, a work ethic. I’ve heard a more snobbish version of the argument pro and con intellectual (or information-based) professions or the craft trades in which people take the position that one is more noble or important than the other.

The question that Vallor brings to the fore a number of times throughout the article is about what technology does with us, not just what it does for us. She argues in favor of a technomoral in that technology and character are not separate spheres. Whether one takes either the extreme position of one work ethic is more important than others, or the Mike Rowe position that the ethics are different but equally important, both of these perspectives is an agreement with Vallor on the co-shaping influence of a technomoral. Can differing technomorals coexist in society? To Vallor’s point, that would depend on how one defines society. 
​

Light, Andrew. 2009. "Ecological Restoration and the Culture of Nature: A Pragmatic Perspective." Chap. 30 in Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 452-467. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

What is Included in Philosophy?

In his article, Andrew Light focuses on the philosophical niche of environmentalism. His main argument is that philosophy should take a role informing activists, policy makers, and the public at large on ecological issues. “If we talk only to each other about value theory, we have failed…” (p. 453). To support this strong statement, Light argues from the specific perspective of ecology. Can such a normative pronouncement be generalized to other niche areas of philosophy, or even to philosophy in general?

In order to plead support for philosophical activism, Andrew Light examines the specific controversy of ecological restoration. The controversy is a normative should question. Should humanity invest in projects intended to restore ecosystems that have been changed through human activity? He examines positions by philosophers such as Robert Elliot and Eric Katz who are against any restorative attempts on several grounds; we have neither obligation nor ability, and any attempts yield artifacts not nature.

Light argues in favor of what he calls ‘benevolent restoration’ on a number of grounds. He notes how even an imperfect restoration can free nature to grow and replace itself where man starts the process. Without any effort by humans, nature often cannot replace itself in damaged areas except with maybe something completely different than what once was. He calls this catalyst approach ‘intermediate communication’. Light further points to how such attempts at restoration tend to restore a culture of nature, if not nature itself. This last point seems similar to Bruno Latour’s position that when a human actor and a technological actant join, it can result in something entirely different than either inter-actor would create on its own. Light calls this interaction “firsthand exposure… to the actual consequences of human domination of nature” (p. 464).
​

This line of reason by Light is persuasive to one who may already be inclined to support ecological issues, but doesn’t actually make the case of why philosophy should do more than contemplate. For example, is sharing philosophical perspective with activists, policy makers, and the public more akin to scientific communications than philosophy?

Here in Virginia the weather has been vacillating between too-cold-for-an-old-guy-like-me, and perfect-for-an-afternoon-jog-or-a-little-yard-work. Sometimes at night we get clear skies that make for perfect star-gazing so long as the wind isn’t blowing enough to make the crisp night air feel more like bone-chills. This is the time of year when Mother Nature can’t seem to make up her mind. They say it’s all about the jet stream. Recently my wife and I were able to make the trek over to Solomon’s Island were we keep our little sailboat. We needed to change out two mooring lines that were excessively chafed. While we were there we did a few other maintenance requirements. It was nice to get a few hours on the water, even if we were just tied up to the dock.

In March I filled a church assignment by speaking in the young single adult (YSA) congregation. It was a nice change of pace for me. I’ve worked with youth for so many years. We always tell the youth that they would be making the most important decisions of their lives in just a few years. For the YSA members, they are making those decisions now. Decisions about missionary service, career paths, marriage, and whether they will choose to hold onto the light they have gained up to this point, or allow the ‘wisdom of man’ to sway them.

This question of whose wisdom we should aspire is an important one to me. I’ve had many thoughts and experiences over decades that have brought clarity around issues of ‘fact’ and issues of ‘truth’. I find it interesting that the current academic field of study I’m pursuing puts a great deal of focus on these concepts as to their forms, or even their existence. There are so many ways to think about the arguments. There is no way to really do these ideas justice in such a short format as this blog post. I find it so interesting that schools or disciplines in science and engineering claim solidity in either or both ideas (facts and truth), yet ultimately reach so many differing conclusions that the variability of support for and against ‘established’ facts, and the supposed truth they lead to, are left suspect. This variability in itself puts in question why anyone would stand firmly behind conclusions that directly contradict truth revealed by way of the Spirit. Let me give you just a few examples of what I mean.

Scientific and engineering disciplines seek to define ‘truth’ in a very specific way. Its practitioners (I am among them by the way) will argue that it starts with data (facts). It really doesn’t though. It really starts with a question, followed by a hypothesis, then the design of an experiment, then the carrying out of that experiment, then an interpretation of the data the experiment produces, then a depiction of the interpretation. At every step of the way a human is making decisions about how to do something, as well as what to leave in, and what to leave out. We call this deciding what is relevant. The human is communicating all of this to other humans. Each human looks at the information and process along the way slightly differently. Eventually, by convention, experts generally agree on what the facts are. Assemble enough agreed upon facts and one has evidence. Assemble enough agreed upon evidence and one has proof. Assemble enough agreed upon proof and one has truth. Sadly, the road along this method is riddled with facts, evidence, proof and truths that with subsequent similar effort prove to be neither facts nor truth. I know what we immediately derive from this. That means such a method is self-correcting. Yes it is, so long as the later correction is closer to truth than the previous version. Since we don’t have absolute truth to compare the outcomes of our effort to, we can never really be absolutely sure with this method.

I use two tools to explain. These tools are really the same tool described from opposite perspectives. They both address variability. If you are a mathematical person, you might wonder where the magic wand of a ‘constant’ comes from. As a young student I was taught what constants were needed for a given formula to perform a specific calculation. Constants are used in all scientific fields. A constant is either an unchanging number, or a standard function that one inserts into a formula to reveal a hoped-for outcome. I always wondered what motivated the genius scientists to create such a powerful mystical tool that can make the formula (sort of) work every time. The answer as it turns out is that a constant is a trick. One takes the formula that is thought up to create or interpret data. Often the data has variability, meaning it does not form a perfect pattern of some kind (a line, a curve, etc.). If there is too much variability then the data (facts) don’t support a hypothesis. Run the numbers enough times, such as in use of a Monte-Carlo simulation, and the data might sort of fit the pattern one is looking for (meaning the data are statistically significant). How to make that better? Figure out a constant that can lower variability to something more acceptable. Like magic, the expected shape, though not perfectly adhered to within the data, gets closer than the non-constant-laden formula produces.

If science approaches variability by cleaning up data through use of a formulaic constant, engineering approaches it through setting limits of acceptability known collectively as ‘tolerance’. Engineers simply accept that there is no actual perfect answer, but there is a range of answers that work ‘good enough’ to complete a task at hand. The result is a requirement creation in the form of a measurement of some kind plus-or-minus some degree of imperfection. It might be a length, weight, pressure, temperature, etc. measurement with an allowable percentage of variation. In my world of communications networks we call this approach creating a ‘link budget’. Science adjusts a formula to better align data with what’s expected. Engineering leaves out anything that gets too far from what’s expected. Is that thing actually a meter long, or is it more-or-less a meter long? The second is always the best answer.

Where am I going with this? Truth cannot be a function of what we agree to. For me, truth is a discreet statistical sample. Something is or is not true. The same can be said for facts. What is not a discrete sample, but rather a continuum, is the validity of what one accepts as fact or truth when dependent purely on human logic and reasoning; this is the ‘wisdom of man’. The answer for me has been in coming to rely on the revelatory guidance of the Holy Ghost. One must put in the effort of reason and logic to understand truth claims, then seek direct confirmation from Heavenly Father who knows all truth and is eager to share with those willing to both ask and act. For me, this is the definition of faith. It’s not just believing blindly. Faith is purposeful action that leads one to truth. Faith is understanding that despite all we do on our own we can never really come to knowledge of truth through data and reason alone.
​