Beach Haven

In my Navy days, I made shipboard passage across the Pacific Ocean five times. When planning a route, we used two different kinds of maps. The first is called a gnomonic projection. Of the two types, it more closely represents the spherical in 2D. The problem is it also covers large swaths of the globe, not much good for day-to-day navigation. We would draw a straight line on this projection, say from San Diego to Honolulu. Then we would transpose some way points to a series of Mercator projections. This sort of map covers smaller parts of the ocean and is better suited for short daily navigation. A GPS uses Mercator projections. Here is the problem. A straight line on a 3D surface like a globe is not straight on a flat surface. As I said, gnomonic maps are a closer approximation of a sphere. A straight line on this map becomes a curved line on a Mercator version. It turns out the shortest distance between two points on a sphere is a curved line, not a straight one. In order to avoid keeping the ship in a constant turn, points are transferred from one map to the other at predetermined intervals. The ship turns a little at each of these waypoints allowing it to keep to the overall path.

While attending the temple recently, I noticed three words connected with the covenants described. These words are ‘laws, rites, and ordinances’. The scriptures remind us that ‘straight is the gate and narrow the way’ that leads to eternal life. The gate is the ordinance of baptism and represents a form of waypoint on our path. From the April 2024 talk "Put Ye on the Lord Jesus Christ" by Sister J. Annette Dennis, “Through a covenant relationship with God, our own lives can become a living symbol of our commitment to and deep love for our Father in Heaven, … and our desire to progress and eventually become like our Savior, being prepared to one day enter Their presence.” From the April 2024 talk "God’s Intent is to Bring You Home" by Elder Patrick Kearon, “What do God’s messengers, His prophets, call this plan in Restoration scripture? They call it the plan of redemption, the plan of mercy, the great plan of happiness, and the plan of salvation, which is unto all, ‘through the blood of mine Only Begotten’.”

First, let’s look at laws. There are certainly laws that we think of as codified such as traffic or tax laws. God’s laws are the commandments. For me, this is a narrow version of what laws are. For example, there are physical laws that existed long before we humans started trying to understand them and write them down. Gravity is a force, sometimes called a law. Because of it, for a long time we thought we could not fly. Eventually we learned there are three other forces along with gravity that are part of the laws of aerodynamics, and then we could fly. Those laws or forces (gravity, drag, thrust, lift) were always there, unwritten, yet true. By the way, when it comes to gravity, we still don’t know what it is. We can describe its effects, but we still use both Newton’s ideas of gravity as a pulling force and Einstein’s ideas that it is a pushing force. We use both because sometimes Newtonian math works better than Einsteinian or vice versa, but neither fully describes gravity. Despite the fact that we haven’t fully documented the law of gravity, yet it exists. For me, a law is less a set of written rules. It is more a way of life, a path. D&C 88:25 "And again, verily I say unto you, the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law."

Rites are a subset of the law we choose to live. These are physical things we do alone or together that act as waypoints along our path, our law. They could be traditions we do like birthday celebrations or holidays. Other examples are holding family home evening, youth activities, ministering, serving a mission, our callings, or repentance. For me, not all rites are commandments, but all commandments are rites. If we choose rites that are not waypoints on the path to heaven then we eventually arrive somewhere else.

Finally, ordinances are a subset of rites. In the case of ordinances, they are defined and require authority. These are things we can’t do for ourselves, but someone else performs for us, or we for someone else. Examples include baptism, confirmation, receiving the priesthood, and temple ceremonies. I have come to think that the Atonement was also an ordinance. It was performed only once by one person who had authority on behalf of everyone. Christ did not need the atonement for his sin since He had no sin. He was not acting for himself. He did resurrect for himself, then gave that power to the rest of us.

Navigating along the covenant path, following a law or way of life, is like the straight line on the gnomonic projection. Rites and ordinances are like waypoints we do day-to-day like those documented on a Mercator map. What’s our next waypoint, our next rite or ordinance? Is it attending meetings, going to activities, partaking of the Sacrament, or attending the temple for ourselves or our ancestors? President Nelson has reminded us that the covenant path includes daily repentance. We also know we should include daily prayer and scripture study as waypoints as well. These routine rites keep us on the path. Again from the talk by Elder Kearon, “Fundamentally implicit in all of His teachings to live on a higher plane of moral conduct is a call to personal progression, to transformative faith in Christ, to a mighty change of heart.” Let us include more daily waypoints to stay closer to the path of personal progression.

For years I rode the train from Stafford, VA to Washington DC each day. It gave me about an hour each morning and evening to study for my classes, listen to music, pray, and ponder about questions as they came to me. Over the course of a year or so, one question I asked on and off was how to develop a direct relationship with the Savior. For example, when I pray, I speak to Heavenly Father and receive guidance through the Holy Ghost, so I am directly interacting with the two of them. I understood Jesus Christ to be my advocate with the Father. At times I would picture it almost as if He were there next to Heavenly Father, sort of whispering to Him on my behalf. I could be thankful for what He did for me in the atonement, but the communication relationship seemed indirect and impersonal.

From the conference talk by Elder Jose L. Alonso titled “Jesus Christ at the Center of Our Lives” I read "The profound questions of the soul, those that surface in our darkest hours and highest trials, are addressed through the unwavering love of Jesus Christ." In Matthew 11: 28-30 Jesus himself said, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 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. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” The load of normal life with added feelings of guilt can become a heavy load indeed. The Lord’s grace takes our guilt, making our load lighter. When we understand His love for us even our normal life-load seems lighter when we consider the future promised.

From the conference talk by Elder Quentin L. Cook titled “Be One with Christ” I read "I recalled the Savior’s pleading Intercessory Prayer (John 17) in our behalf. This prayer occurred in literally the closing hours of His mortal life as recorded in the Gospel of John." I see John 17 as a master class in clarity between the dogma of the Trinity and the doctrine of the God Head. It is clear that we are to be one with Them and with each other even as They are one with each other, meaning in the same way that They are one. Not one in body, but in every other way. Continuing from Elder Cook’s talk, "In today’s world, it is easy to focus on material and occupational success. Some lose sight of eternal principles and choices that have eternal significance. We would be wise to follow President Russell M. Nelson’s counsel to 'think celestial'.”

During the sacrament ordinance we say we are willing to take His name upon us. In the temple, we are not just willing to take His name, but in two places we symbolically take His name upon us in a more literal and direct way. Likewise, we finish our prayers saying ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’. This was another of my train-pondering topics. What does that even mean? I’m sure there are many likely meanings, but at least one of them includes approaching deity with both the privileges and obligations of a follower of Jesus Christ. We say to God that we subject ourselves to and claim the blessings of the grace of Him who atoned for us. In this way, we directly align ourselves with Jesus and commit to a direct association.

Back to my consideration of how to have a more direct relationship with Jesus Christ. I thought of two times when Jesus acted as an advocate. The first was mentioned earlier during the intercessory prayer in John 17. The other happened in 3 Nephi 17:15-18.

15 And when he had said these words, he himself also knelt upon the earth; and behold he prayed unto the Father, and the things which he prayed cannot be written, and the multitude did bear record who heard him.
16 And after this manner do they bear record: The eye hath never seen, neither hath the ear heard, before, so great and marvelous things as we saw and heard Jesus speak unto the Father;
17 And no tongue can speak, neither can there be written by any man, neither can the hearts of men conceive so great and marvelous things as we both saw and heard Jesus speak; and no one can conceive of the joy which filled our souls at the time we heard him pray for us unto the Father.
18 And it came to pass that when Jesus had made an end of praying unto the Father, he arose; but so great was the joy of the multitude that they were overcome.

In both cases, Jesus was not at a distance whispering to the Father on behalf of others. Instead, he knelt alongside them and prayed to God on their behalf. This changed my perspective. From that point on, instead of seeing Jesus at a distance as I pray, I now see him as kneeling beside me, joining me in prayer to Father, speaking in my behalf. My part of that process is to repent daily for my shortcomings and serve others. Like everyone else, I have earthly responsibilities such as earning a living, taking care of my home, furthering my education, and spending time with my family among other things. Yet these things need to be secondary. Although most things in this life rarely workout perfectly, yet I know to build my direct relationship with Jesus Christ, I need to trust Him to make things right though the power of his grace. This trust includes things both spiritual and temporal, but to tell you the truth I’m not sure I understand the difference. For what spiritual thing do we experience that does not require some sort of physical act? What physical experience does not in some way or other affect our spirit?

I hope I will do my part in order to grow a more direct relationship with Jesus Christ. I hope the same for you as well.
​

​With the permission of my wife Michelle, I’d like to share a story of discipleship I witnessed back in March. On a Saturday evening at about 10pm she received a phone call. Anytime the phone rings that late it’s almost always bad news. In this case, a sister in our ward was calling for help. She and a friend had gone roller skating earlier that day. At some point the sister took a fall on her backside. It was now hours later, and the pain was still steady and strong. Having experienced a broken tailbone at one time in life, Michelle suggested a hospital visit. The good sister of course had no way to get to the emergency room. So well after our normal bedtime (we're old), off she went into the night to take this sister to the hospital. She knew this was an all-night task and told me to get to sleep.

The next morning as I was driving for an early church leadership meeting, Michelle was on her way home after being up all night. We chatted on the phone. She promised to get an hour or two of sleep before church. I returned home later that morning, and we went to church together. She plays piano for sacrament meeting so felt she could not put that on someone else last minute. She was also unsure if she could stay for the second hour of church. Normally she sits on the stand to avoid going up and down during the sacrament meeting. If I have no church business I sit in the congregation. On this occasion I suggested I might sit on the stand with her and nudge her when it was time to play the piano if she was having trouble staying awake. As you might guess, the opposite happened. She stayed awake and had to nudge me several times during the meeting. She was able to attend Relief Society during the second hour as well. Obviously, the Lord was helping her.

There are several points that came to mind for me in all this. It’s the simple selfless kind of service that marks a servant of the Lord. As important as visible roles in gospel service are, personal direct acts of service are the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Faith is the other thought that came to me in this. She had a willingness to do her part and trust that God would somehow help her through the trial in the moment. Michelle didn’t really question what she needed to do. She gave a short sigh, bade me good night, grabbed her car keys, and off she went knowing fully well she faced a sleepless night. 

I regularly read a monthly publication from my church. The periodical is called The Liahona and is published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Earlier this year I was reading the January Liahona. I reviewed the article “Slow Reading: Seeing the Savior in the Scriptures” by Ted Barnes.

Here’s the link:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2024/01/06-slow-reading-seeing-the-savior-in-the-scriptures?lang=eng

It made me think of a scripture I was ‘slow reading’ at the time. By that I mean I looked at the words closely and considered their various possible meanings, searching for Spirit-led insights. In speaking of early American people, The Book of Mormon says:

2 Nephi 1
5. But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.
6. Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

(Mike’s note: This would seem to include all who come to America through whatever means.)

7. Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

Plenty to unpack here. I read this as regardless of how or when someone comes to this land they will be blessed if they keep the commandments such that the land will be a land of liberty. If iniquity becomes more the norm, then this land will be cursed. Despite such cursing for the majority when iniquity becomes the norm, the land will still be blessed for those who are righteous, however much a minority, since the word used above is ‘forever’.

I wonder about this pattern in the limited historical knowledge we have of people coming to the Americas. In The Book of Mormon there were the Jeredites who arrived in the wake of events of the Biblical Tower of Babel. As they began to decline and self-destruct, the family of the Israelite named Lehi (dividing into factions of Nephites and Lamanites) were next. They were later joined by the Mulekites who came after them but who had lost the gospel as a people. They were saved from destruction by the teachings of the Nephites. Eventually the Nephites were destroyed by their Lamanite relatives as they had rejected the gospel after having it for so long. The Nephite people had the gospel and the Lamanites had strayed because of early decisions by their ancestors. Lamanites had power over the Nephites for in the end as we read in Doctrine and Covenants 82:3 “…he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.”

One assumption of mine is that Asians migrating south mixed with those Nephites who left the main body of their people having migrated north, after which no more is known of them. Later, their decedents likely mixed with Lamanites. In either case, the Lamanites eventually encountered Europeans who were led here. Like the other people chronicled in The Book of Mormon, the Lamanites too were decimated and driven. However, in keeping with God’s promises to Lehi and Nephi, the Lamanites have not been completely destroyed, but still live among us. After the Europeans came, they were joined by free and enslaved people from every part of the globe. 

What of this pattern? Are the people now flooding our southern border a manifestation of yet another cyclic iteration? Have the modern American people drifted so far from the values of Christianity that we too risk the land becoming cursed for our sakes? Will we be supplanted by another people? I’m not saying all people in America have to be Christians. We are a diverse nation and that has shown to be a strength to us since before we were a country. I am advocating here for those basic values that have come to define our way of life regardless of one’s belief or non-belief. I understand these values are Judeo-Christian in origin, but other cultures hold similar values.

I’ve heard many speculate about these topics lately in the news. Specifically, there is a great deal of debate about legal and illegal immigration. I’m not sure raising alarm is the primary way we regular every-day Americans should react. Rather, along with voting our conscience, as the scripture says above, “unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.”

The best way I can gain comfort in a time of turmoil is to trust in Jesus Christ. As I do my best to live the Gospel, however imperfectly, I can have confidence that His promises are sure. I can share the gospel with those who have a long American pedigree, and recent immigrants alike. If they live righteously then they too can find the blessing of liberty here. That said, an aspect of living the gospel according to one of our articles of faith states that “We believe… in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 1:12).  Whether long-time citizens or in the process of becoming one, accepting evil over good will add to the cursing. Whatever lays ahead in the future for our country, I believe my own personal future will be sure to the degree I put my faith in Jesus Christ by serving Him.
​

Pausing is something I’d like to mention in this note. Reading in the book of Moroni (within The Book of Mormon) I recently noticed something. In Chapter 2, Jesus gives the apostles power to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost. He tells them that before they enact the ordinance they should, “call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power…”. In Chapter 3, He gives them power to ordain brethren to the priesthood. Verse 3 notes, “After they had prayed unto the Father in the name of Christ…”. In both cases the holders of the priesthood are to pause long enough to pray before they enact the ordinance.

I have often done this myself, and have seen others do it also. I hadn’t thought of it as an instruction or requirement to do so, only a way to bring the Spirit. Yet in both of these chapters, saying a prayer as a precursor to the ordinance is part of the ‘manner of’, meaning part of the expected process. In the first case, Jesus specifically instructs the brethren to do it. In the second case, it is written as one step in the process.

The practice of making time to pause and pray can be applied to anything we face. It could be for seeking guidance and assistance in completing a difficult task like taking a school exam, giving a speech, discussing a family problem, or approaching the bishop for repentance. Taking a prayerful pause can also be taken after getting through something such as any of these same examples. Taking pause can be done during a moment of pondering, or while noticing your blessings. Pausing and praying doesn’t have to be something prescribed. We don’t have to go find a place to formally kneel if it’s not available. We can just take a moment to bow our head, whisper our prayer, and collect our thoughts wherever we are. We can also consciously seek a moment of privacy where kneeling and verbal prayer are possible. In my mind, the latter is preferable.

As an example, in my recent working life I have been a speaker at meetings of a committee of the NPR Board of Directors. It was a part of my job I did almost every month. Some time just before the meeting starts I would close my office door and bow my head to ask for Heavenly Father to inspire me with the right words. I did that even though I already did as part of my normal morning prayer. I still had to do my part to be prepared for the meetings, but He helped me recall the information I needed during the presentation and in response to questions that will come up from board members.

I recommend we each take advantage of the blessing God has given us, the blessing to pause and pray with whatever life brings us. Even when we are in a hurry and have little time, taking a moment will make the outcome better.
​

When our children were small, we had a series of home evenings in which we created a family vision statement. After a few discussions, we came up with this: “Wisdom through knowledge, integrity, and service.” We called it the ‘we kiss’ rule since we arranged it in a way that the first letters of each word formed the acronym WKIS. I’ve written several articles over the years related to this statement. Generally, anything I write to the family eventually ends up on this web site. I always thought we left out something spiritually inclined from the statement. To be fair, in our discussions the word ‘integrity’ was intended to include living a Christ-like life.

Fast forward some decades and in 2022 I had been thinking a lot about it. I listened to people (including family members) who say something like, ‘I’m a spiritual person but not a religious person’. By this they would clarify that organized churches are not for them. I considered how to add something about spirituality to round out the ‘we kiss rule’ with the second ‘s’. I thought also about just saying ‘and the Spirit’ meaning the Holy Ghost since I have been very focused on the need for the influence of the Spirit in our lives to help see our way through the fog of human reason or rhetoric. I finally decided that the Spirit is not our focus, but the Savior is our focus. I updated for myself the statement to be ‘Wisdom through knowledge, integrity, service, and the Savior.’

For those who may argue that being spiritual is good enough and I might have used it for my final ‘s’, here is the way I argued this point to myself. The reason I think I was uneasy with the long-standing earlier version is that while the goal of wisdom is what we agree upon, the mechanisms of knowledge, integrity and service are all three about characteristics I might develop in myself. In other words, the goal is to be achieved through my own efforts. Sadly, one need only to look around and realize readily that dependence solely on oneself only gets you so far. So many people essentially follow that method and yet arrive far short of what could be called wisdom. Just the fact that they all seem to land at a different idea of what is wise or true is evidence enough of variation from a universal. That we’ve even come to use phrases like ‘my truth’ or ‘your truth’ for what we used to understand as one’s perspective regarding truth, not universal truth itself, shows that such an approach is insufficient.

So, Mike, why not then just add spirituality at the end of the phrase? Isn’t that what you want to encourage in people? Well, surely spirituality is important, but it seems to be not enough. I would argue that for the same reasons as above. Organized religion, too, can be a seen as insufficient if one looks at how many different churches exist, even just within the Christian community. Here is where I would argue that we cannot then depend on just adding one more personal characteristic such as spirituality or religiosity since doing so still means we seek wisdom only through developing our own personal characteristics. In that way of looking at things, we are simply deciding which personal characteristics should be on our list of wisdom-getting tools. Since none of us is perfectly equipped with any characteristic we might add to our list, this approach of self-growth simply isn’t, and will never be, enough. That’s why this last letter in the new and improved ‘we kiss’ acronym has to represent something or someone outside of ourselves that does represent a perfect knowledge or understanding. I argue the scriptures point us to Heavenly Father, but through His son Jesus Christ. For Christians (and in truth which I could argue another day), His is the only name given to us that will lead to perfect wisdom, perfect truth. Adding spirituality assumes we can achieve the goal of wisdom alone. I am arguing that if we approach it that way then the amount of wisdom we gain will be severely limited. When we include the Savior, a perfect being can make up for our shortfall and bring us closer to perfect wisdom despite our imperfection.

Sorry if these babblings seem trivial or rambling. For an old, slow guy like me, these thoughts hold weight and are important. I’m sure you will read this and either say to yourself something like ‘no duh Mike’ or will instead judge me off point. I hope someone reading this will at least find it confirming of their own thoughts even it is not new ground.

Earlier this year I had the assignment to speak in the Centerville Georgia Ward of our church. The assigned topic was about being spiritually prepared to receive revelation. There were several specific recent quotes from President Nelson included in the note assigning me to speak. Aside from sharing several personal experiences, below is list of notes I used to form the heart of the talk.
 
We Believe
All God has revealed, all he does now reveal, and we believe he will yet reveal many great and important thing pertaining to the kingdom of God

• Revelation is not just to the prophet for the church, but for ourselves in our own individual lives

 
Need Holy Ghost
"Our Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, will perform some of His mightiest works between now and when He comes again. We will see miraculous indications that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, preside over this Church in majesty and glory. But in coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost." President Russel M Nelson April 2018
 
Seeing miracles won't be enough.
Faith precedes the miracle. We recognize miracles as miracles when we have faith to see them.
There are many scriptural examples of people who saw miracles, then explained them away.
 
President Russell M. Nelson, has said: “We live in a world that is complex and increasingly contentious. The constant availability of social media and a 24-hour news cycle bombard us with relentless messages. If we are to have any hope of sifting through the myriad of voices and the philosophies of men, we must learn to receive revelation."
 
1 Nephi 8 (Book of Mormon)
26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth.
27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit. (meaning the gospel)
28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.
 
1 Nephi 11 (Book of Mormon)
35 And the multitude of the earth was gathered together; and I beheld that they were in a large and spacious building, like unto the building which my father saw. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Behold the world and the wisdom thereof…
36 And it came to pass that I saw and bear record, that the great and spacious building was the pride of the world…
 
My work experience has been in media and academia. Many among those I have associated with there are honestly looking for truth but are limited to intellect and reason only. Like the three blind men and the elephant one can be factual and miss truth. Some once-accepted facts are later shown to be not factual. We must rely on the Spirit.
 
Science example:
Law of gravity – man cannot fly - lesser law (less information) - Newtonian physics
Laws of aerodynamics – man can fly - higher law (more information)
 
Gator Navy approach - The 4 A’s of Operations

• Plan - consider options ahead of time - study it out - seek, ask, knock, feast - to Oliver Cowdary "you took no thought save it were to ask me" (Doctrine & Covenants 9)
• Arrive - here you are, be present in family, church, work, studies, whatever you do (put aside distractions)
• Assess - look, listen, ponder and pray
• Adapt - align more with God

Isaiah 55 (Holy Bible)
8  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

• Act - keep the commandments, fill callings, serve others, fill ministering assignments, be in it

John 7 (Holy Bible)
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
 
Go and Do
Want spiritual experiences in the temple? - go to the temple
Want to see miracles? - serve
Want clarity/truth? – it comes ‘line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little’ - work for it every day
 
Think verbs, not nouns - act, do but don't overdo
Doctrine & Covenants 10
4 Do not run faster or labor more than you have strength and means provided to enable you to translate; but be diligent unto the end.
 
The Savior is our example:
John 5 (Holy Bible)
17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Acts 10 (Holy Bible)
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good,
 
Our actions don't save us, but they show and grow our faith. More faith means more gift of revelation by the Holy Ghost.
The key is faith that the Savior will make up the difference after all we can do.
 
Where much is given much is required. - so where less is given less is required
Revelation comes at the level we are ready to receive it. People who are new to the gospel can receive revelation even with little knowledge or faith.
 
President Russell M. Nelson has extended a simple, powerful invitation: “My beloved brothers and sisters, I plead with you to increase your spiritual capacity to receive revelation. … Choose to do the spiritual work required to enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost and hear the voice of the Spirit more frequently and more clearly.”
 
 

As Christmas quickly approaches, I hope each of you is also able to enjoy the spirit of the season. It’s the time of year we remember the birth of Jesus Christ. I remember my experience as a missionary at Christmas in Spain. Though it’s been more than 40 years ago, the memories are clear. It was both trying being away from family, and wonderful watching the gospel at work in the lives of people. I remember similar times away from home in the Navy, or for work, but nothing matches my time serving God.

I’ve been thinking about the talk Pres. Russell M. Nelson shared in 2022 titled ‘What is Truth?’. This topic has been close to my heart for a long time. It’s what drives me to seek wisdom, ‘even by study and by faith’. My PhD studies focus a lot on the intersection of facts, perspective, and truth.

About five years ago I noticed a bump on my forehead. It grew slowly, but noticeably. After nearly a year I had a doctor take a look. It was clear that it was under the skin and attached to my skull. As the doctor looked it over, he called my bump a lesion. He ordered up an ultrasound followed by an MRI. After the ultrasound, the bump/lesion name changed again to an occlusion. An ultrasound essentially looks at one side of the occlusion. That was the incentive for the MRI. After the MRI, the name changed again to an osteoma. It was described to me by the doctor in another way. He called it a benign bone tumor. The nature of the thing on my head never changed, but the technical tools used to look at it, and the names those tools inspired changed. So too did my level of stress over what it might mean for my future health. In the end, there is no health risk. Its growth stopped. If I ever want to have it go away, they can cut open my forehead and grind the bone. Sounds gross, and it’s not all that noticeable as it is. In fact, if I don’t mention it people generally don’t even notice. However, if I point it out, a person can’t help but notice.

This all seems analogous to truth to me. Truth does not change. It simply is, regardless what we call it, what we use to discover it, or how we feel about it. In my academic studies a large question is whether truth is 'discovered' or 'manufactured'. In the gospel sense, we seek truth through study and faith. For me, faith means doing. We can certainly understand some things intellectually. I assume you have met people who are ‘convinced’ of gospel truths, yet fail to commit. That’s because they are not willing to exercise faith by acting on invitations. What one believes is not the same as truth necessarily. It’s our individual responsibility to seek. Just like my bump, people often don’t notice the gospel until someone points it out to them. Then they can’t ignore it. They are forced to accept or reject. They can’t not consider it once they hear the word. That’s probably true of any idea, whether it be true or false, but gospel truth is only confirmed through BOTH study AND taking faith-based action.
​

On occasion I consider my blessings. So many of those thoughts can easily turn to worldly things. Quickly overshadowing such ideas is recognition of all of my family. More joy and challenge comes from them, and the way Heavenly Father has chosen to bring each of them into my life.

I want to point to something I am particularly thankful for. It is my testimony of the influence of the Holy Ghost. Here is why. Over the years of my academic, work, and church life, and just my life-life, I’ve heard so many ways of thinking, so many ideas about what evidence is and what it shows. I’m convinced we can be convinced about almost anything when we rely solely on logic and reasoning. Which facts are actually factual becomes more and more in question when one turns them around from many angles. I’m thinking about the lyrics to a Doobies Brothers song that says “The wise man has the power to reason away what seems to be.”

This is where the Holy Ghost comes to be so important to me. When it comes to the most important issues, those that have to do with the eternal, knowing truth from ideas is critical. There are plenty who question whether truth is real or just a social construct. Is truth independent of us? Can ‘your truth’ and ‘my truth’ in some way coexist? I put these words in quotes because the idea of relative truth is so prevalent in American culture these days. The plea for us to coexist more and more becomes ‘you should just accept me as I am.’ Many of these same coexist-proponents become the opposite of tolerant when others express opposing views. I’m not necessarily talking about politics here, though it certainly plays out in that arena. Rather, I’m talking about just about every idea in any arena that people hold dear to themselves. I’m also not considering in this short note ways we can all get along.

What I’m more focused on here is how I try to ferret out truth. Understanding ideas implies taking the time to understand them; study, not shallow study. I personally don’t expect the Spirit to testify about every idea I hear in order to know if it’s true or false. When I stack up ideas about what I already know to be true, then I don’t need constant reassurance, though occasional reassurance is welcome, and it happens. When I consider ideas that are interesting, but not overly important from an eternal perspective, then I don’t seek spiritual confirmation. I also don’t assume that God wants me to gain all knowledge in this life. My mortal capacity is just too limited. I take that to mean it’s ok that there is way more that I don’t know than I do know today. There is time for much of that learning later. All that said, I regularly seek and receive truth affirming guidance from a loving and living Heavenly Father by way of the vitally important gift of inspiration that comes through the Holy Ghost. At this point in life, I believe without that comforting, still, small voice I would be lost in many ways. There are too many conflicting ideas purported by apparently reasonable people using apparently sound reasoning. One can’t even judge ideas solely by the people who advance them, meaning ‘good’ ideas come from ‘good’ people. That puts one in the difficult position of deciding who or what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. For example, the founding fathers of the United States are favorite targets these days, yet the ideas of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are strongly persuasive if one actually takes the time to read them.
​
For me, I’ve learned to discriminate truth from ideas in terms of the gospel through study, living the precepts, and listening to the whispering of the Holy Ghost. I see this as building on a sure foundation.

I serve on the board of the North American Broadcasters Association (NABA). It’s an industry group that addresses international government policies that relate to television and radio broadcasters. The board meetings are often in NYC at the headquarters of NBC at ’30 Rock’. I’ve been there many times before for similar efforts. When I travel between DC and NYC the train is my preferred way to go. It’s just as fast as going through airports, and it gets me closer to where I’m going in Manhattan. It’s also much cheaper. Since the train offers Wi-Fi, I can be productive as well. On one of those trips last year I decided not to concentrate so much on work and took some time for pondering. What follows is not new, nor profound, but is a sketch of where my thoughts led that day.

​Many years ago, I saw an amusing note on a gas-station bathroom wall in Wyoming. It said something like, “The bottoms of our septic tanks are higher than the top of the tallest building in Denver.” Having lived in Leadville, CO in years past, I could appreciate the sentiment. My mind then recalled when our children were young, and we visited Mount Rushmore. Up close it is very impressive. As we left the site, we stopped at a roadside lookout a few miles away. From that distance the carvings seemed quite small in comparison with all the mountains and largess of the surrounding nature-scenes as a whole. In essence, on the train to NYC my thoughts revolved around perspective.

Immediate demands for one’s attention are at times necessary, such as earning a living. When those demands are less necessary they seem fleeting, such as checking on the number of ‘likes’ on a recent post. What about long-term focus? These attention-demanders can help us grow. The risk is they can become too worldly. Examples include exercise for better health or financial management for stability later in life. Not bad. Maybe even important. Yet, again, do we think long-term about worldly issues only?

What about an eternal focus? Does it cause us to ‘forget’ the things of this life? I would argue that eternal perspective makes our insights on the other two foci (immediate and long-term) more truthful. If we manage to have an eternal perspective, at least occasionally, our immediate demands might also include daily spiritual efforts like living the commandments, reading scriptures, and praying. You know, the ‘primary answers’. In terms of making our long-term investment of time more truthful, an eternal perspective might entice us to consider more effort with family history, attending the temple, fulfilling and magnifying our church callings, or finding ways to offer service. In my train-thoughts I was equating eternal perspective with the idea of being 'in the world but not of the world'.

I think maybe the immediate and long-term life demands are about the ‘what’, while having eternal perspective might be more about the ‘why’. Both the ‘what’ and the ‘why’ can be summed up in the two great commandments to love God and our neighbor.

My first introduction to the idea of perspective that I can actually remember came from a song and cartoon on Sesame Street. It was called “That’s About the Size”. The song is all about our physical perspective in relation to physical objects. It can equally apply to our philosophical perspective in relation to ideological subjects.

Here is the link to the Sesame Street song from all those years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ABxl46Ovv8
​

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”. 

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.

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?

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.
​

Feenberg, Andrew. 2005. "Critical Theory of Technology: An Overview." Tailoring Biotechnologies 1 (1): 47-64.

Andrew Feenberg concludes that Critical Theory of Technology is “the argument of our time” (p. 63). How can the philosophy of technology “join together… potentiality and actuality – norms and facts – in a way no other disciplines can rival” (Ibid.)?

That’s a strong claim. Feenberg seems to be saying that other disciplines do not have the ability to synthesize both theoretical and empirical approaches as well as not just the philosophy of technology, but the specific version of philosophy of technology known as Critical Theory. Perhaps a key focal point to his description of this approach is in the idea of recontextualization. Criticism (analysis) of technology leads to decontextualization. Try as we humans might, we are not able to fully separate technology from its context. The result is a redefinition of context. Feenberg claims these attempts tend to minimize social constraints, but not fully eliminate them. In an attempt to redefine social context, risk still exists that social and political decisions are biased due to unequal power.
​
Is that really what happens? This line of reasoning seems to answer the theoretical portion of Feenberg’s conclusion. What of the empirical? He notes how “technical advances break down the barriers between spheres of activity” (p.62). Although he advocates critical theory of technology, it’s not clear that there are no other approaches that are able to reconcile “many apparently conflicting strands of reflection on technology” as he claims (Ibid.).

Latour, Bruno. 2009. "A Collective of Humans and Nonhumans: Following Daedalus's Labryrinth." Chap. 11 in Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 156-167. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
Bruno Latour is a seminal author in the field of Science, Technology, and Society (STS) as the architect of a set of ideas that have come to be known as actor-network theory (ANT). This excerpt was originally a portion of chapter 6 of one of his published books titled Pandora’s Hope. One of the base tenets of ANT is that anyone, or anything, or any group can be considered an actor (or more precisely an actant) in a network supporting a technological system. The more actors/actants in a supportive system, the more accepted the system is. Eventually, a heavily supported system is no longer scrutinized. It fades into the background as a nested system or ‘black box’ that nobody questions anymore.

This particular piece is focused on the idea of technical mediation, or ways in which one node in an ANT network influences another. Interference is a mediation when agent 1 enlists agent 2, and together they become agent 3. For example, a person enlists a gun, and together they become a killer. Composition is a mediation where an actor’s goal becomes interrupted by some obstacle, they seize another agent and return to the original goal (overcomes the obstacle). Folding of time and space is another mediation for Latour. In this example goals are redefined by nonhuman actants. A speed bump slows us down in a parking lot, not so much because we don’t want to injure a pedestrian, rather we don’t want to injure our car. The designers and builders of the speed bump are not present at the time when we cross the so-called ‘sleeping policeman’, yet use of technology by them in the present adjusts (mediates) our action with the technology of the car and the parking lot. The speed bump and the technology to create the speed bump are nested black boxes to the larger system of transportation through cars and roads. The last mediation is about crossing the boundary between signs and things. A change in technology is used to modify behavior, and behavior modifies the technology. Parking lot speed signs and painted crosswalks are intended to serve the same purpose as a speed bump. If a parking lot owner decides the technology of speed limit signs and painted lines do not invoke the behavioral change of slowing down, then the behavior inspires the addition of a speed bump, which in turn modifies the behavior of not slowing down.

The biggest critique of Latour and ANT has been his emphasis on actors, and ignoring of non-actors. If a person, thing, or group does not directly affect a technological decision, then they are effectively ignored. In the speed bump example, what of those who never drive? What of those who ride bicycles or walk? What of those who pay no taxes to fund the road or parking lot? For Latour they are not considered, but tax payers who don’t drive are also not considered since they have no direct impact on the technology. Despite this, the technology has some impact on them since they pay taxes, though any one person’s taxes are not directly attributed to the individual project of the speed bump.
​
The basic concept of mediation is a large one in philosophy, including to the specific branch of philosophy of technology. Are technological artifacts a result of societal values? Are societal values shaped by the technology available to a given society? Do society and technology ‘co-construct’? Is there an intent within a specific artifactual device? Is the device neutral, and the intent only lies within the person or society creating or employing the device? These are basic concerns of philosophy.

The attached version of the reviewed article is from an alternate source.

Brey, Philip. 2009. "Philosophy of Technology Meets Social Constructivism: A Shopper's Guide." Chap. 7 in Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 98-111. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, and Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
In his ‘Shopper’s Guide’ approach to spelling out ways social constructivism could compliment the philosophy of technology, Philip Brey offers at least a partial answer to Langdon Winner. The latter had judged in previous writings that if one were to open the proverbial black box of Bruno Latour, one would find no tangible additions to philosophy by social constructivists. Winner argued this was because social constructivism harbored definitions that are too narrow in scope. To Brey, social constructivism does examine areas Winner claimed it was ignoring.

Philip Brey offers generalized descriptions of the ‘strong’ and ‘mild’ approaches of research (his shopper's guide). He agrees that the strict adherence to the symmetry principle in the strong program can inhibit some, but not all, philosophical supporting research. He claims the philosophy of technology is too abstract. It does not examine any particular technology or its impacts. Testable arguments within the philosophy of technology are often not supported by empirical evidence, he notes. Experiments and data derived through social constructivist research, Brey argues, can help philosophers of technology construct more realistic theories.

​For Brey, artifacts are socially shaped, but also embody a script that can influence outcomes. Social constructivism, he argues, allows normative and evaluative philosophical analyses of technology and its impacts not otherwise possible. He does temper his argument stating, “these approaches, if valid, do suggest new directions for the philosophy of technology” (p. 108). Brey had suggested throughout the article that the proverbial black box was not empty as Winner suggested, but was filling up as social constructivist research expanded, and rigid adherence to the symmetry principle was vacillating. One could argue that this idea of adjustment to the symmetry principle results in something other than social constructivism. Brey weakens his argument by adding the caveat “if valid” to his closing statement.

​The attached version of the reviewed article is from an alternate source.

Here in Virginia winter has continued. We have had a series of snow and icy rain storms moving through Stafford, and the forecast says there are more to come. Clearly Punxsutawney Phil got things right this year. Between storms it stays cold, and the ground stays alternatively frozen or muddy. It’s made outside yard chores a bit more challenging, but I’m managing to clear some wood-fall, seed some bad yard patches, and till up some garden spots. If you want things to blossom in their time, work is required early.

In our gospel work we know that too. It’s true that church work is about the harvest. Gospel work is also about preparing ground, sewing seeds, and feeding truth and the Spirit for those who will follow to the harvest. Others have done some of that work for our harvest. We do similarly for others who later harvest. I’m reminded of how the Mormon pioneers approached the westward migration from Illinois to Utah. Along the path they planted grain fields. These were fields they would never actually harvest and eat from themselves. They planted those fields for the waves that would follow them on the same trail.

If you’ve ever been through western Nebraska and looked at the various trails west you would see how God’s wisdom was at work. One year while traveling from our home in Lincoln, Nebraska where we lived at the time to visit family in Utah, we decided to travel along the pioneer route (now known mostly as Route 2). At one point we stopped in Scottsbluff and went to the top to look over the expansive valley divided by the North Platte River that flows from west to east. There’s an observation point on top the bluff with all sorts of information. As it turns out the Oregon Trail passes through the same place. Oregon-bound migrants traveled on the south side of the river. Church members traveled on the north side. I found that curious as eventually those bound for Oregon would cross the river and head northwest. Those bound for the Salt Lake Valley would follow the river to the west-southwest. That means at some point along the way the trails crossed each other. In either case, by traveling on the north side church pioneers were able to plant their storehouse fields for those to follow without the harvest being taken by other travelers who might not have understood their purpose.

In our studies of the Doctrine and Covenants this year, my wife and I discussed some ideas of predestination and foreordination as shown through the story of the lost 116 pages of translation from the book of Lehi within The Book of Mormon. Nearly two thousand years before Joseph Smith received the plates from Moroni, Heavenly Father inspired Mormon to include the small plates of Nephi in his condensed version of the Nephite history. A thousand years earlier still He inspired Nephi to keep two sets of plates with similar information, but with a different focus. Those two small decisions allowed God to inspire Joseph Smith to publish The Book of Mormon while thwarting the evil intent of whoever stole the 116 pages of manuscript from him.

Were those with the evil intent of changing the words on the manuscript predestined to harbor those thoughts and attempt to discredit the prophet? If not then Heavenly Father might not have needed to inspire both Nephi and later Mormon about the small plates. Yet, all have agency. If it were not so we could easily fall prey to the idea that everything we do is preset and we have no agency. Some argue in favor of predestination to excuse poor behavior as if they have no choice. Many scientists and philosophers argue this point about whether or not we actually have agency, not from a religious perspective, but relying on logic. Some combination of genetics, chemistry, and circumstance cause our actions, they say.

Yet the gospel teaches that we do have agency, and are accountable at some level for what we do, say and think. I argue the foreknowledge of God does not preclude our agency. We are certainly influenced by genetics, chemistry, and circumstance. Influence is not a determinant, no matter how much the reasoning of science and philosophy says so.

One of the blessings of this life is the ability to develop faith. That only comes because Heavenly Father wisely removed memory of our pre-earth life. What we call a veil of forgetfulness also helps answer the question of the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and our agency as opposed to predestination. He may know all things, but thanks to the veil, we don’t. We are influenced by our own strengths, limitations and circumstance. We all are responsible within the varying levels of light we have received in our life. Ultimately Christ knows the level of our culpability and repentance, and He will be our judge. The experience of it all is a learning and growth opportunity for us. The knowledge we do not yet possess, that He does, makes our choices an act of agency, not mechanical predestination. In the end we will all agree his judgement is both just and merciful.

Just as the pioneers knew the blessing their field planting would be to those who followed, God knew the small plates would bless those to follow. The pioneer planters and reapers both had the choice to plant or reap, but those who reaped only had the choice because of those who chose to sew. Oregon-bound migrants did not sew, and none behind them were blessed. This all sounds a lot like the work of bringing souls to Christ.
​

Jonas, Hans. 2009. "Technology and Responsibility." In Readings in thye Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 173-184. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
Hans Jonas looks closely in this article at how technological change drifts inherently toward a Utopian set of actions. Utopian could be thought of in the sense that people effect change to make things ‘better’. One has to ask - what does better mean? Jonas specifically asks - what force (or insight, or value-knowledge) represents the future in the present? How one views a future that ‘ought to be’ reflects one’s technological decisions today.
​
Like others who examine ‘modern technology’, Hans Jonas makes the case that the pace and potential lasting effects (positive or negative) have outstripped our ability to adjust ethical wisdom. Former technological change was slow enough that we could examine potential outcomes through an ethical lens, and that ethical lens could be adjusted as societies gained technological knowledge. The knowledge we lack about new ethics is more urgently needed, he suggests, but wisdom is not gained urgently. The ethic of thou shalt not kill only exists because of our capacity to kill. Our capacity now has global implications both for humanity and for nature, though one can also argue that these are not independent of each other. Jonas notes how our capacity to bring about irreversible effects has likewise grown.

The attached version of the reviewed article is from an alternate source.

Winner, Langdon. 1993. "Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology." Science, Technology, & Human Values (Sage Publications, Inc.) 18 (3): 362-378.

Empty? Full? Something in Between?

In this article, Langdon Winner champions the need to look more closely at technical artifacts, the varieties of technical knowledge, and social actors. He views these research focus areas as black boxes much as Bruno Latour describes the concept in actor-network theory (ANT). He notes how constructivism also helps us consider these as well as the “interpretive flexibility of technical artifacts” (p. 366). Winner describes this sort of constructivist research as a narrow understanding of society in terms of ‘environment’ or ‘context’ that influences technology choices made. As helpful as this approach is, Winner argues that the narrowness of this perspective disregards important questions.

For Winner, the constructivist approach is a backward looking perspective with focus on technological origin and adoption. While constructivists note how context influences technology choice, it’s proponents often leave out social consequences that result once a technical choice is made. Constructivism tends to adhere to Latour’s concept of networks. By considering only those identified as actors who directly influence a given technology, groups considered ‘irrelevant’ are simply left out. ANT in particular notes dynamics of immediate needs, interests, problems, and solutions. While perhaps partially fulfilling some or all of those societal concerns, Winner notes the same technology often erodes community such as modern communications that can encourage human isolation.
​
By concentrating current and past interaction of technology and society, Winner points out, constructivism is essentially ignoring judgement (political, moral) of social use of artifacts. Temporally, he says, this is looking only at the present and the past with no thought toward potential futures. For Winner, this is a partial view that leaves empty the ‘black box’ constructivists claim to be opening up for examination. Couldn’t one argue instead that such an approach is not looking at an empty box, but perhaps conducting a partial inspection of the contents?

Marcuse, Herbert. 2009. "The New Forms of Control." In Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 34-42. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
 
Review by Michael Beach

This article was shared in the aggregate referenced book, but is really the first chapter of a book written by Harbert Marcuse titled One-Dimensional Man. In the Marcuse reading The New Forms of Control, he argues, among other things, that use of mass media is one technological mechanism intended to align inner-dimension personal needs with outer-dimension societal (repressive) needs. The higher the personal level of indoctrination, the more the standards of priority align. Marcuse uses this idea of a societal need to indoctrinate as an implication of the two-dimensional person. ‘Society’ uses technology such as mass media to bring individual needs toward a goal of mimesis. When that societal goal is reached, the individual is now really one-dimensional. There is no longer any difference between personal or societal needs as expressed through technology adoption.

Marcuse wrote this in 1964. Mass media then was quite different from today. Television and radio broadcast channels, as well as newspapers and magazines, were essentially the communication technologies of the day. Marcuse focuses primarily on broadcast media, rightfully for the time in that these were the primary information and entertainment sources of most people, at least in many western cultures. Since then media have fractionalized considerably. One can make the argument that narrowcast two-way media is having the opposite effect as Marcuse depicts. As people have ever more choices, and increasing control over the sources they rely on for information, the number of ‘societies’ available through technical means has grown. Membership in any one society or culture has decreased. Many people even find themselves in multiple cultures simultaneously. Mistrust grows by way of technology in those cultures (societies) to which one chooses not to belong. Maybe this still makes each person one-dimensional as Marcuse implies. Does it also mean each ever-more-specialized society now adjusts its needs to match individuals in order to have enough ‘membership’ in order to exist? Is it the society that becomes more one-dimensional?

The attachment is of the specific reference above, but is the entire work. This article only reviews chapter 1.