"In Which We Live In"

     "Rock got no reason, rock got no rhyme." With these immortal worlds, Jack Black articulated one of the unspoken consensuses among songwriters: one does not simply use good grammar in rock n' roll. And that's absolutely the way musicians live. As long as the point comes across, you don't even need to sing in complete sentences and it's completely all right. As both an English major and a songwriter, I think I can objectively say that music typically sounds better without a strict grammatical structure. Some level of coherency, say above a fifth grade reading level, is appreciated, but beyond that is not absolutely necessary—and not just appreciated, but often times preferred over lyrics with proper usage. In fact, I think the only time I've heard a rock song with a blatantly correct lyric (on a complicated principle) is a number by West of London, an 80's band led by my uncle, David Mizera, and we had this on cassette, so I don't know the name, but I think it's "Falling in Love Again." At one point, Uncle David sings, "She knows to whom I belong," and it sounds fantastic! But as a general rule, unless you can make it work flawlessly, don't stress about it. Rock got no reason.
     But songwriters who don't have a handle on grammar try to sound elite and sophisticated, and there's one example that always stands out in my mind: in 1973, Paul McCartney wrote the song in which we live in..." etc. What we see here is the classic attempt at not ending a sentence with a preposition (the first "in") and then immediately forgetting how one began the phrase (the second "in"). Only the first or the second is necessary, and in music, the second version, though grammatically incorrect, is probably preferable. But he says both. This happens a lot in speech, forgetting what we've said just moments before (somebody just texted me yesterday saying, "With who we meet with"), but I love how Paul had this written down and still said it. Classic Paul.
"Live and Let Die" for the James Bond movie of the same name. Gun n' Roses later covered it, and then Paul McCartney released it again, so a lot of people think that Gun n' Roses was the original, but no, it was Paul. Still, he makes me laugh. Most people know how it begins: "When you were young and your heart was an open book, you used to say, 'Live and let live.'" But in the next line, Paul goes for the grammar win and...loses: "If this ever-changing world
     I think the biggest reason for this type of error is an overcompensation of trying to sound smart, using language over which one doesn't have complete command. We want to sound intelligent, but we don't actually know what we're doing. Honestly, this is pretty much how we all act all the time, and that can be a very good thing; that's how we progress, how we innovate. A desire to be more than what we are is a wonderful thing and, at least in my mind, a manifestation of our divine potential to inherit all that the Father has, including power, wisdom, and knowledge. If we want to grow, we have to take risks; however, those risks should be calculated, moderate risks, at least most of the time. Sometimes, I guess, we have to launch into the unknown or we don't really have a choice but to do the hard thing. But for the most part, although we have to risk falling if we ever want to ride a bicycle, we don't have to make our first ride gunning it down a mountain trail on a brake-less bike, hitting jumps and sharp turns, all the while not wearing a helmet. That would be...well...if you can't say anything nice...impractical.

     Being an adult, or "adulting" as we now say (and I'm okay with that), is difficult. As we also say, the struggle is real. We (my peers and I) seem to find ourselves constantly in situations that challenge, confuse, and/or frighten us. We have to study, work, and date. On a more daunting note, we have to pick a major, set the foundation of a career, and form a family. So much depends on what we decide now, and because we still have to decide and/or follow through on these things, we have little idea of what our future holds. Therefore, we take risks. We take leaps of faith. We step blindly into the darkness. If all goes well, we survive. Like riding a bike, we experience falls as we take normal and essential risks. But like Paul, sometimes we overstep ourselves. That's okay as long as we're willing to deal with the problem, but the issue is when we either take no measures toward improvement or we pretend that we doing just as well or even better than those around us.
     This makes me think of some friends who are in thousands of dollars of student debt, eating out frequently and bragging about their salary, which they blow on frivolity while they accumulate more and more debt. This is less like bombing the hill on a bike and more similar to jumping off the mountain entirely. Some people don't know how to live responsibly, and it's sad to watch that happen. But as long as people insist on feigning intelligence, wealth, or talent, there's little anyone can do to help someone who won't help himself.
     None of us is immune from the principle. Even if we're not overstepping ourselves now, we could in the future, and a false sense of security will inhibit our ability to recognize that. And as we go along in this life, we're meant to reach out to others  and reassure them that we're there for them regardless of their circumstances and especially if they're struggling. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell said, "As things unfold, sometimes in full view, let us be merciful with each other. We certainly do not criticize hospital patients amid intensive care for looking pale and preoccupied. Why then those recovering from surgery on their souls? No need for us to stare; those stitches will finally come out. And in this hospital, too, it is important for everyone to remember that the hospital chart is not the patient. Extending our mercy to someone need not wait upon our full understanding of their challenges! Empathy may not be appreciated or reciprocated, but empathy is never wasted" (Maxwell, "Lest Ye Be Wearied and Faint in Your Minds"). So as we go along, let's be kind and remember that everyone, including ourselves, frequently makes mistakes.
     This isn't meant to scare anyone, so sorry if it has. I love life. This time of life is difficult, but I love it, too. Taking risks can be fun if they're kept in check. The purpose of this post is to encourage you to go forth and conquer, taking calculated risks and enjoying life. Don't be afraid of "this ever-changing world in which we live in (sic)." Take it, run with it, and live and let die.

Here's an instructive message about taking risks and making wrong decisions. It's not always a bad thing.

Bright and Early

     There are few things more depressing to me than waking up while it's still dark outside. One of the only things more depressing than that is waking up while it's still dark outside for an early class. Unfortunately, that's how my schedule has worked out and will work out for the next little while, as it's the only way to take fifteen credits and work twenty-four hours a week. I'm not here to complain, though, so we'll cut the pity party short. Plus, I'm sure you're going through similar to if not the exact same thing right now, so this doesn't help in any way other than to reassure you that you're not suffering alone.

     But seriously, where did the phrase "bright and early" come from? In my experience, this is a complete paradox; you can either have one or the other. When I wake up early, it's dark. When I wake up to a bright sky, my first thought is, "Fetch! I'm late!" (yes, I say "fetch." I'm a Mormon). Whoever coined this phrase must have had a very different idea of what constitutes "early," like many people I know who think that 9:00 a.m. qualifies as the wee hours of the morning. I'm so jealous of people who sleep 'til noon. Even on days off, my body wakes me up at 7:00 (when it's still dark-ish). This might have something to do daylight savings time, but I don't know. It just doesn't make sense to me.
     My purpose today, however, is to talk about a morning both bright and early. Today is Easter, one of two days set aside to remember the Savior's role in our lives. There has been a lot of decay in the religious and moral culture of the world throughout history, and as sad as it is to see, it can be find of funny. Here's a video of Fox News guy Jesse Watters conducting street interviews to find out what people (don't) know about Easter:

     Jokes aside, I'm so grateful to Jesus Christ for His atoning sacrifice in the Garden of Gethsemane, for His lifelong example of righteousness and love, and for His victory over sin and death, all of which provide me and all of us with a clear path back to our heavenly home. "I stand all amazed at the love Jesus offers me, confused at the grace that so fully He proffers me. I tremble to know that for me He was crucified, that for me, a sinner, He suffered, He bled and died. Oh, it is wonderful that He should care for me enough to die for me. Oh, it is wonderful, wonderful to me" (LDS Hymns #193).
     If Christ had never risen again, He still would have paid the price for our sins. We would still have His love and His teachings, and He would guide us spiritually from beyond the grave. He still would have saved us, and He still would have been the ultimate martyr. I would still own Him my life and my soul, my heart and my faith. His atonement in the garden was sufficient to redeem us from hell and the natural man.
     But His resurrection signified a turning point, a victory many had never expected Christ to achieve or had even known was possible. It meant that death was not the end for us and that He had power over all things except one. It meant that all things were possible through Christ. When I think about the resurrection, I realize that though the atonement of Jesus Christ can give us the faith to continue, the resurrection offers the hope to do so joyfully. It teaches us that we have nothing to fear. Oh, it is wonderful.
     Think about what the resurrection meant for His followers in Jerusalem: they didn't realize the magnitude of the atonement of Christ (if they knew He had suffered it at all), so they felt lost and confused. They felt no light, no hope. All they knew was that their Master's life had come to an end, and they saw no way forward. So early that Sunday morning, after a dark Thursday in Gethsemane and on trial, Friday at Calvary, and Saturday of Sabbath worship without a teacher, four women came to find an empty tomb, an unbearable disappointment. But not long after came the brightness as Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene (whose name means "Mary Cupcake" in Spanish), and nothing was the same again.
     I testify that Christ lives and that His sacrifice is infinite, and because of it, we will never have to suffer alone. I testify of Christ's love for us and for His desire to see us succeed. I testify that His victory over death provides us with the same capability and that we will one day see Christ and see God, and we will be as they are. I stand all amazed.
     Today and always, let us remember Christ and the gifts He gave us and the teachings He offered us that spring day almost two thousand years ago. Though it was early, a morning has never been brighter.

Head Over Heels

     It's a great feeling to be able to say that I'm head over heels in love. This expression implies that
the sensation of love has turned your world upside down and has forever changed your perspective on the meaning of your very existence. Lovely. No, seriously, that's a wonderful thing, but I cringe at this explanation not because of the interpretation but because of the phrase itself and what it actually means. Think about it: if you're neither standing nor sitting, do so, or at least picture yourself doing so. Where is your head? Where are your heels? Which is higher? I apologize if I'm making generalizations and you just don't have the same body type as I do, but I'm going to assume that your head is already above your heels. As in the image here, people often depict "head over heels" as doing a handstand or flipping upside down, but just look at this child: where is his head? Where are his heels? Which is higher? Unless I'm very much mistaken, I believe that his heels are over his head. This makes no sense.

     I don't understand why this expression is so taking for some people, but I do understand the concept of the world turning upside down when you're in love; everything is different, your desires and goals and motivations come from an entirely alternate source, and although all of your free time is devoted to one person and you never get any sleep because you want to spend as much time together as possible (this is my experience at least), you're happier than ever and somehow find that you can function like a normal human being and still manage to smell nice and look cute and give proper attention to your significant other. It, too, makes no sense, but it works, and it's awesome.

     Happy, blissful love is a wonderful thing, but while love is eternal, at a certain point, lovers have to remember that there is a world going on around you. There's nothing like the imminent knowledge that in less than two months you will be independently responsible for all of your expenses to jolt you into reality. But that's a part of growing up, and I'm fine with that. Love is supposed to mature as you advance through life. Dietrich Bonhoeffer once said: "In your love you see only your two selves in the world, but in marriage you are a link in the chain of the generations, which God causes to come and to pass away to his glory, and calls into his kingdom. In your love you see only the heaven of your own happiness, but in marriage you are placed at a post of responsibility towards the world and mankind. Your love is your own private possession, but marriage is more than something personal—it is a status, an office. Just as it is the crown, and not merely the will to rule, that makes the king, so it is marriage, and not merely your love for each other, that joins you together in the sight of God and man."

     Youthful twitterpation is awesome, but God didn't intend true love to stay that way—he wants us to grow and contribute to the world. He wants us to build and progress and prepare for the future by taking advantage of the present. He wants us to be realistic yet optimistic, hopeful while keeping our wits about us. And that, I think, is being head over heels in love—maintaining order, maturity, and responsibility. In the beginning of a relationship, I think it's totally fine to be heels over head in love. Please do. Indulge in the alternate reality of it all. But then make sure that you come back to actual reality at some point so love and marriage can realize their full potential. Love is wonderful, but it's not about living with your head in the clouds; it's about facing the world together with your heads square on your shoulders. I love that my fiancée is realistic and logical yet very romantic. We're able to be in love while being adults, and I think that that's going to be very important as be progress through the next stage of our lives. Sometimes my love for her makes me forget everything else, but most often I find it far more romantic that our love makes us able to face the world together—confidently, responsibly, and absolutely head over heels in love.

It's always a struggle to find the balance between wanting to spoil my fiancée and wanting to be practical. Here's a great example of a couple who knows what's most important:

Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice

     Like last week's discussion on "Feminism," this isn't actually a post about politics—it's about what these words make you feel. As I'm sure you can guess, I have a very strong opinion about abortion, but I see no point in sharing it without articulating/defending it, and I see no point in the latter in this post. This is about words, not policies. Both sides obviously feel very strongly about their standpoint, and I don't think it's very easy to establish either view as anything other than right vs. wrong. There isn't much neutral territory in regard to a woman's right to choose an abortion or a fetus's right to life. My point, though, is the tactics that each side uses in an attempt to discredit (I might even say "demonize") the other—each does it, no way around it, whether you agree with their cause or not. It may be justified because of the seriousness of the issue, so I don't mean to say that they're wrong in doing this. But just look at the implications:
     "Pro-choice" advocates propose that a woman has a right to an abortion. But with such a title, they imply that any who disagree with them are not pro-choice, meaning that they must be pro-control, pro-slavery, pro-compulsion, and pro-bondage. Those who object to a pro-choice agenda will obviously disagree with that, but that's what it sounds like to anyone unfamiliar to the other side. Everyone loves choice and choosing. Everyone wants to be able to control their own lives. So labeling something so controversial with such a universal concept elicits empathy for the cause.
     "Pro-life" supporters argue that a fetus has a right to live and that the mother's choice about its presence passed when she chose to have sex and thus conceive him or her. While the mother certainly still has a choice about whether or not she will abort the baby, pro-lifers classify such as murder and demand that the mother receive the consequences of her choice. But to say that this standpoint is pro-life indicates that any other view is pro-death, pro-destruction, pro-murder, and pro-loss. Pro-choicers don't see it that way, but isn't that what the name suggests? Again, whichever conviction you hold on this issue (and I hold mine very strongly), you have to acknowledge the demonizing tactics at work here, whether each side deserves it or not.
     As I said, this post isn't about abortion—it's about the implications of the words we use against other, or the words we use in general. Obi-Wan taught me, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" (kinda sounds like an absolute, hypocrite!), and any time you lay down an absolute, you combine it with implications about those who disagree with you. It's easy to twist words.
     In the Book of Mormon, a wicked lawyer named Zeezrom challenges two preachers, Alma and Amulek, in their teachings of Christ. Zeezrom offers Amulek six onties of silver (essentially a month and a half's wages) to deny God. When Amulek won't do it, Zeezrom goes on rapid-fire, seeking to trap Amulek in his words and get him to contradict himself. He asks Amulek if there is a God, if God has a Son, and if the Son will come. Then look what happens: "And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word. Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people—as though he had authority to command God" (Alma 11: 34-35). To make a long story short, Amulek catches Zeezrom in his lie and schools him, saying "And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins" (Alma 11:37). What was the difference? Doesn't Christ provide salvation and victory over sin? What was Amulek saying that Zeezrom twisted? Fifty years later, a prophet explained, "And remember also the words which Amulek spake unto Zeezrom, in the city of Ammonihah; for he said unto him that the Lord surely should come to redeem his people, but that he should not come to redeem them in their sins, but to redeem them from their sins" (Helaman 5:10, emphasis added). Zeezrom's wordplay was subtle, but he twisted one preposition to make it sound like Amulek was denying that Christ would redeem us. Tricky tricky.
     Satan does the same thing with us all the time, telling half truths and trying to back us into a corner. He takes our inherent desire to be free to choose for ourselves and twists it to mean that we should be able to take choices for other people. He takes our desire for life and twists it to mean that life should never be taken from anyone, even criminals who take life from others. Sadly, we too often fall for his lies.
     But just like with Amulek, if we rely on the Spirit of the Lord, we will not be deceived. The Spirit is the key to understanding God's truth (the truth) and to blocking out all of the voices that would lead us astray. God's greatest desire is to lead us home, and He has given us the means we need to get there: life, choice, and the Holy Spirit to guide us.

Listening to the Spirit takes practice, patience, and paying attention:

Feminism (and other misleading clickbait)

     Just to warn you, this post will actually not address feminism, its origins, or its pros/cons. This will merely be a discussion of its name and how it's not all that it seems to be. I hope not to confuse you, so I'll just get right to it:

     I'm not super familiar with the different waves of feminism, other than that they exist. Some are apparently more or less man-hatey than the others, but no matter how many times people explain (or even mansplain) it to me, I can't remember which wave is which. Either way, I know that at its roots, in its purest form, Feminism is the quest for equality between men and women—not that women should be higher than men, not that men need to compensate for the wrongs that their gender has committed against females, and not that all men are evil. Most feminists, or at least true feminists, want true equality: same pay for the same work, same opportunity for education, etc. Some feminists even argue a more tradition equality of "same value, different areas of responsibility," such as women being homemakers and men breadwinners, but that neither is above the other in their stewardship. I said I wouldn't discuss Feminism, which means that I technically lied, but I'm trying to show that I understand that true Feminism is about equality (I'd get murdered in my sleep if I made my next point without establishing that).
     My problem with Feminism, then, isn't what it stands for; it's its name. Why on earth would a cause advocating exact equality between men and women adopt the name of only one of those sexes? That's just maddeningly unhelpful. It's like calling Neopolitan ice cream "Strawberry" because it technically contains strawberry, but in an equal proportion to chocolate and vanilla. Back in my day, we called that "False Advertisement." Now we call it "Feminism."
     I mean, look at this section of an email I got this week from BYU:
     Women’s Resources
This is a great office we have here on campus in 3326 WSC. They are a great resource, specifically for women’s issues such as body image, abuse, nutrition and wellness. So they try to help both men and women in regards to this. They have events, free consultations, support groups, wellness services, and free yoga/zumba classes on Saturdays (9:30-10:30 a.m. men are welcome as well). (emphasis and bold added)
     Am I the only one who sees issues here? Let's break it down: for one, there's actually an office for women's resources on campus. Why would women need that? Rather, what does it offer that women need but men don't? Can't we just have human resources, campus police, aromatherapy, or whatever will help both genders? Look at what comes next: "women's issues such as body image, abuse, nutrition, and wellness" (yes, I added the Oxford comma). Wait, what? Those are exclusively women's issues? I feel like I just found out that I'm a woman. I worry about my body image—I've felt and/or been overweight since I was eight and on to the present. Abuse can take many forms, even self-abuse, which is no respecter of gender. Men, too, can have a hard time with nutrition, especially in college, where everything is 100 mph and there's never a moment to slow down and focus on being healthy. And wellness? Wellness is a women's issue? Wellness, whether physical, mental, social, spiritual, financial, or emotional, is certainly a gender-transcendent issue. I've dealt with depression, and men are more than twice as likely to commit suicide. Why is this just a women's issue?
     But wait! They do take care of that. See there, "They try to help both men and women in regards to this." So why label them as women's issues? Are they implying that "helping" men in such a way will help them understand the harm they're doing to women in each category, or are they actually admitting that men have the same issues? I think it's the latter, hopefully, so why label them as "women's issues"? Then, at the end, they invite men to yoga and zumba classes. For one, if they already specified about men before, why must they do it again? It's like they're anticipating men feeling left out...of women's resources....Imagine that. But maybe it's because they understand that most men don't/won't do yoga or zumba, which are at least contemporarily seen as feminine activities. So how will these things help men in any way other than to embarrass them? If seeking to help men, why not offer things that men like? If you're seeking to achieve gender equality, why name your organization "women's resources," why label the help given to both as strictly "women's issues," and why offer events for both men and women that (typically, most often) only women want to attend? If they were called "women's resources" and expressed only desire to help women, that would be a different issue altogether. But given that their mission statement is to help men as well as women, their presentation is entirely misleading and inaccurate.
     I'm not trying to shame women, feminists, or even those who believe that men should suffer for the faults of society's past. I don't even want to get into that. My issue is that the very titles given of Feminism and Women's Resources imply something very different than that which such groups claim to uphold.
     This is an issue of hypocrisy, and that certainly goes beyond gender debate; it's a human issue. People claim to mean "no offense" before attempting to absolutely ruin someone's day. People claim to want economic equality while eternally adopting a "as long as you tax someone else" mentality. People claim to want the truth, but everyone chooses to get offended by the least opposition to them. It's sad, really, because I don't think that people actually realize the discrepancy. They truly don't realize that they're lying to themselves. It used to get me mad, but now it just makes me feel sorry for them.

     I truly believe that honesty is the best policy. I also think that contrary to common belief, we can handle the truth. But in order to be honest with others, we first have to be honest with ourselves. If you mean to give offense, don't say you don't. That's better, in my opinion, than lying. If you hate men, well then hate 'em, gosh dang it! But don't pretend to hold them in equal esteem. I don't mean to be cynical, and I don't think that people are malicious in their hypocrisy—it's just that we're all hypocrites in one way or another. o my hope is that we can all (myself included) ponder and identify our own hypocrisy and that we do something about it. I have no problem disagreeing with people, but if we're going to get into a debate, I would at least prefer an honest opening statement, one with a solid, driving thesis—not a sensational, misleading clickbait.

This isn't exactly on point, but it's about realizing when the problem is with yourself,

not with others. I could definitely stand to internalize this message more fully.

Fiancé & Fiancée

     I can't remember how old I was when I first heard the word "fiancé," but I must have been pretty young. The earliest would've been when I was six, because that's when my sister got engaged. Either way, I've known about it for a while. Several years later, I'm sure, though I can't remember exactly when either, I learned that there was a difference between a fiancé and a fiancée, one being a guy, the other being a girl, respectively. I don't really use a trick to remember which is which, but if you want one: the girl has two "e"s like girls have two x chromosomes, because she's (at least in my case) twice as smart and wonderful and attractive as me, because "woman" and "female" are longer than "man" and "male," etc. But those don't come to mind. Don't get me wrong, I tried that, but it never really stuck for some reason. I grew up with siblings getting married, and I knew that there was a difference, but until I got engaged in January, I couldn't have told you with any confidence which was which. "Fiancé" is a boy, "fiancée" is a girl. Easy, right? Now I know that, but it took me forever to figure it out.
     The funny—read "awful"—thing about that is that now I'm as much of a snob about spelling it correctly as I am about the other random English rules I've ranted about on this blog, and I didn't even know about it until I had done this blog for two months! I didn't even realize how quickly I had changed until last week, and it wasn't even a huge revelation; I just saw somebody write "fiancé" when they meant "fiancée," and I was like, "Pfft. Amateurs." Then it dawned on me: I'm a snob. Like, more than usual, and not on something that's always bugged me. I immediately look down on people who haven't learned the things I know at the exact moment I have. I'm a horrible person.
     I keep trying to come up with an example for this, and I'm having difficulty. It's kind of like when a six-year-old says, "When I was little" or "kindergartners are such babies." Adorable, right? Not when you're twenty-one, it's not. It ceases to be cute and starts being annoying. People don't like to be looked down on—for any reason, but especially for not knowing something that you barely have a handle on yourself.
     It's like the parable of the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18 (Yes, I just looked that up. No, I won't judge you if you don't remember where it's found. I'll probably forget, too): a servant owes his master an enormous sum, yet when he is about to be carried off to debtors' prison, he begs for mercy. Kindly, his master forgives him the debt—not just gives him more time, which I always thought happened, but eliminated the debt entirely. The servant cries his thanks and leaves. But soon after he does, he seeks another servant, a man who owes him a mere fraction of what he (servant #1) owed the master. In the same words that servant #1 used before, servant #2 begs him for mercy, only this time, servant #1 refuses to forgive the debt and has the man cast in prison. The other servants tell the master, who chastises the unmerciful servant for his hard heart and sends him to the tormentors until he can pay the debt (which no man can while in prison). Christ tells this parable to Peter, who asks Him how many times he should forgive his brother. A beautifully dramatized version of Christ's telling can be found here.
     It wasn't until last week with the "fiancé" thing that I realized that I do the same thing. Maybe we all do, but that requires personal evaluation, and I'm in no position to tell you what your faults are. But I invite you to think about it and figure out if there's any way in which you unfairly judge others, especially on things you yourself have repented of (and should therefore be even more understanding than most). As personal as I like to be on here, this isn't the right place to confess all of my sins, so I'll just tell you that I can think of many times in which I'm hypocritically judgmental. Being judgmental is never good, but especially when you're guilty of the same crime. Like Christ said, "He who is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone" (John 8:7).

     In the words of some favorite hymns, "Who am I to judge another when I walk imperfectly? In the quiet heart is hidden sorrow that the eye can't see. Who am I to judge another? Lord, I would follow thee," and "Because I have been given much, I, too, must give." God has blessed us with many gifts, including immeasurable knowledge. He didn't give us these gifts to make us better than others, but so that we could serve our fellowman. It must be horribly frustrating for God to watch us imperfect people attempting to carry out His perfect work, but He deals with it. What must be unbearable, though, is when He sees our impatience with one another for being imperfect. It's one of those things where He probably laughs so He doesn't cry. But He wants better for us. I love the words of a Christian rock song, "Jesus, friend of sinners, open our eyes to the world at the end of our pointing fingers." May we learn to love each other the way Christ loves us: with patience, compassion, and mercy. He cares much less about how we spell words than He does about how we treat each other.

Okay, I just can't help but put this here: it's a super cheesy 80s or 90s version of the parable of

the unmerciful servant. I grew up watching this, and I still love it in all it's low budget glory!

Just Desserts

     When I was a kid, this phrase confused me like no other. At first, I thought it meant that somebody was getting something awesome—I mean, desserts? Lots and lots of desserts? To quote B.O.B. from Monsters vs. Aliens, "Cake and balloons for lunch? It's gonna be the best day ever!"
     But then people started saying that "just desserts" meant having something bad happen to you. My six-year-old self was like, "How the heck does that work? Was this phrase invented by a vegan? I don't understand." How could it be a bad thing to get dessert?
     Eventually, I found out that the phrase didn't refer to pastries at all, but that the word had an alternate meaning. Okay, I could go with that, but I still found it weird. After a while, Google became a thing, and I looked it up for myself, realizing as I did so that while it was true that the phrase didn't refer to pastries, I had still been lied to: the phrase wasn't "just desserts" at all; it's "just deserts." Although audibly identical, the spelling makes all the difference.
     "Desert" has at least two pronunciations and three meanings. The first that generally comes to mind is DE-zurt, like a wilderness or place without a certain quantity of rainfall (yes, we all know about the North Pole. Learn new trivia). But as we know, "just deserts" uses the pronunciation of de-ZURTS, so it has nothing to do with The North Pole or San Diego (half the time). But de-ZURTS has two meanings within it: the first is a verb, "to desert," as in to abandon, run away, or forsake one's duty, e.g., a deserter from the Civil War. But the second meaning of the second pronunciation derives from "to deserve." It is a noun, meaning "something that is deserved." Ooooohhhhh. Now I get it. So "just deserts" refers to receiving what you deserve, whether good or bad (though we would find it odd to hear about somebody prospering according to "just deserts"). I doubt this requires clarification, but just in case, "just" in this case refers not to "only" but to "justice," something deserved, making this phrase technically redundant, but we won't get into that.

     But let's get back to the first idea. Imagine a world of just desserts: isn't it the best thing ever? I would be in Heaven. I know some sad people who don't like dessert, or at least not as much as I do, and I feel sorry for them. I mean, just look at that picture. And the video? Oh my gosh. That's pretty much my favorite part of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. It epitomizes the concept of food porn. But getting back to things my mom and fiancée won't get mad at me for, a world of desserts—dessert for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and anywhere in between. Dessert in the morning, dessert at night. Dessert by yourself, dessert with your friends. Dessert in good times, dessert in bad times (even thought there would be no bad times with so many desserts). War would disappear, crime would cease to exist, and poverty would either vanish or become irrelevant. No one would ever have another sorrow if there were just desserts in the world.
     But therein lies the problem: as much as I would love dessert at all times of day, there needs to be something to temper it. Anyone who's eaten a Costco chocolate/chocolate cake knows what I'm talking about. Sometimes, it can be overload. It can be too rich, too sweet, to wonderful, honestly. You can indeed have too much of a good thing. Additionally, you can't even know what a good thing is unless you have something to compare it to. What is one thing without its opposite? Even "opposite" has an opposite, as does "antonym." (Fun fact: "antonym" has an antonym, as does "synonym," but neither has a synonym).
     The prophet Lehi taught, "There must needs be an opposition in all things" (2 Nephi 2:11). We can't know good without bad, sweet without bitter, or joy without sorrow. Life filled with pure joy and prosperity would get old. The movie "Groundhog Day" is a great example of how repeatedly living the same circumstances eventually drives a person to claustrophobia—what seems like freedom initially is really just a prison of sameness.
     As much as we hate to admit it, we need stress. We need challenges. We need trials. I'm not sure how this will work in Heaven, how we will still feel opposition while in the presence of God, but I imagine that we will there feel sadness for all those who haven't made it, who didn't take the right roads, who chose to inherit another eternity. Even in Heaven, we won't be without the broad spectrum of emotion.
     But I believe that that's a good thing. Opposition, pressure, stress—only through these things can we achieve progress. Diamonds and swords are forged in extreme environments. Literally no element of life could exist without opposition. I want God to forge me, to shape me into the person I need to be. I want to improve. I want to progress. So as much as I would love a world with just desserts, I know that I'm better off eating all the courses of life.

Again, my favorite Mormon Message. Someday, we'll thank God for His influence in our lives.

Mad Gab

This is dedicated to my dad, who told me yesterday that I should write a post about how certain words like "the mall" and "them all" sound the same when you say them quickly enough. So, yeah, this is for him.

     One of my favorite games is Mad Gab, and I don't think it has anything to do with my love for English, because I'm awful at this game. But that's part of what makes it fun! I'm extremely competitive, but as long as the competition is fair, I love losing. Winning is better, yes, but losing is still a lot of fun (as long as it's fair).
     For those of you who don't know, the point of Mad Gab is to see cards like these and say what's in the bubble as quickly as possible, trying to figure out what the gibberish is saying. For instance, the message on the top left says, "A practical joke." You can figure the others out. :) My fiancée and I came up with a few more examples, such as "It's not/It's snot," "Would've/Would of," "The snail/this nail," etc., but here's some more official ones:

     Okay, so here's the deal. I'm tired. I almost didn't write this at all, but I can't let myself not do it. But I don't really want to write much, so I'm gonna cut to the chase (you won't believe how ironic this is).
     The world is a jumble. It's fast-paced and hectic and stressful, and it makes me want to sing "Mayberry" by Rascal Flatts. I'm working twenty-five hours a week, taking fourteen credits at one of the nation's best universities, contributing (in my own small way) to planning a wedding, and it's killing me. I know, I'm a wimp and so many people have it way worse than me. But that's my point! People keep taking on more and more, and the only way to get through it is to go as quickly as possible. But when you do that, when you speed through everything, it all just starts to blend together. Everything becomes a messy blur, and at least for me, the monotony makes me wish my head would explode.
     My head is about to explode, so this is my point: figure out a way to slow down. I have no idea how to apply this to my own life, as I've been getting four and a half hours of sleep or less (usually less) for the past two weeks, but it's so important. In fact, this is gonna take a shift from my normal route:
     I don't have the answers on this one. I don't know how to slow down, reduce stress, simplify, none of it, Thoreau, gosh dang it! I found a meme I like:

     I'm not quite to that point yet, but you never know. ;)
     So this is my new point: what can you tell me? How can you help me? I don't have the answers, but maybe you do, and I want them. Instead of trying to teach right now, I want to learn. What have you done? How have you improved? How have you learned to enjoy the little wonders without neglecting those things that you don't want to do but are obligated to? How do you prioritize? I'm really interested for you to tell me. I'm confident that you have something to teach me. Please do.
     Someday soon, I hope to make sense of all this. I know that God loves me and has my back. I know he hasn't abandoned me, and I know that this will all be for my benefit. It's just that right now I'm not entirely clear what He wants me to do with everything He's given me. But I know He'll tell me, and He may do it through you.
     Life can sometimes feel like Mad Gab, but every word has meaning. And when you take it all at the right pace, hopefully you'll start to put the pieces together.

This is a video about the little moments, and I need to learn to live more like this.

The second video is Little Wonders by Rob Thomas, as featured in Meet the Robinsons. :D

Near Miss

     This has always been one of those expressions that just disgusts me. "Disgusts" might be a strong word, but it's not even 8 a.m., so pretty much everything disgusts me right now. I also have two exams today, so that doesn't help.
     Anyway, what exactly is a near miss? At its root, it means that something nearly misses you, meaning that it barely hits you. But as I'm sure you know, in practice, we use it to mean that something barely misses us. "I dodged a bullet. What a near miss!" In all the patience I can muster after a sixth consecutive night of four hours of sleep or fewer, I feel the need to break it to you that that's not a near miss—it's a near hit. A near miss with a bullet is when you get grazed by it or otherwise not mortally wounded.
     I have absolutely no idea where this went wrong. I mean, to me, this discrepancy is pretty obvious. I've never really talked to anyone else about this, so I'm not sure if anyone agrees with me, and I don't have a clue what would have caused us to morph this phrase into its opposite. I mean, I can understand the problem with phrases like, "I couldn't care less" becoming "I could care less." At least the two are similar and the mistake stems from an already-existing, proper expression. But where did "near miss" come from? To my knowledge, there was never a corresponding correct version.
     Basically, the point of this whole thing is to show you that I'm confused. I'm confused at how this error could have occurred, and I have no advice for fixing it other than to fix it. Part of my confusion is that if no one else seems to notice this, there is a strong likelihood that I'm wrong. If that's the case, don't take my advice.
     Looking more deeply, I see a near miss as something that could have easily been avoided—maybe not always "easily," but at least through the exertion of an honest effort. Some of my mistakes haunt me to no end, and I wonder if I'll ever be able to forget that embarrassing comment I made or the time I tripped over a soccer ball (note: both of these happen literally every time I speak and play soccer, respectively). Probably not. I'm hard on myself that way. Forgiving myself for sin, while necessary and wonderful, is one of my greatest challenges. And the thing that makes it all worse is hindsight, wherein I see that every mistake I've ever made was really a near miss, something I could have avoided if I had really wanted to and tried hard enough. Yes, God knows that we will sin, for which He provided a means of overcoming sin, but he doesn't doom any of us to failure. We should each be capable of controlling ourselves. Parenthetically, not every mistake we make is a sin; some are just mistakes (see Dallin H. Oaks's insights).
     A friend of mine once told me, "Experience is ironic—you don't have it until after you need it." And with that experience, we are able to look back and kick ourselves for not having seen more clearly. The first example that comes to mind is watching anything from the 90's and asking, "Why on earth did I wear that?" No one knows, other than that you thought it was cool, and so did everyone else. Reason soon came to enlighten your mind, but it was too late. The shame has still been etched into the soul. So what do we do about it?

     In the words of Jeffrey R. Holland, "The past is to be learned from but not lived in." If there's one thing I've learned from Timon and Pumbaa, it's that you have to put your behind in the past (or something like that). We can't continue to punish ourselves after we have already paid the price. Godly sorrow is essential to repentance, but we need to remember that it is always constructive, impelling us forward in order to set things right. We've all had our near misses, but that doesn't make us deserving of perpetual unhappiness. We're allowed to move on.
     So moving on, what can we do to avoid near misses in the future? The first thing is to be smart. Use that wonderful brain God gave you and think. I have faith in humanity (sometimes), and I believe we're all intelligent enough to make wise decisions when we make them with our brains. America has been proving me wrong, though, lately.

     Look at this picture. Is this really what we want? Are we absolutely sure about that? If you support either of these candidates, that's okay. It's your right to participate in politics as you choose. But seriously, maybe you should actually pay attention to who they are and what they say. I guarantee you in every way, regardless of which of the two becomes president, we will regret it. We will say, "How could I have let this happen? Where did we go wrong?" But it will be too late. We need to be smart ahead of time. And in keeping with the message of this post, these two mistakes can be so easily avoided if we try hard enough. Here are some ideas: vote. Two-thirds of Americans don't vote because they don't care or they don't think their voice will matter.  Next, study. Their words speak for themselves.
     Finally, especially in the case of Trump, don't become so divided that he wins by default. Only 35% of Republicans want Trump, and 65% hate him. That's obviously a lot more, but voters haven't been intelligent in their way of opposing him. 65% of Republicans shout, "Anyone but Trump!" but they can't become unified. Of that 65%, let's say 30 goes to Cruz, 25 to Rubio, and the remaining 15 between Kasich and Carson. Trump wins automatically, despite massive opposition from the party. But we could so easily avoid this if we acted more intelligently! I'm not here to decide between Rubio and Cruz, because honestly, I myself have jumped between the two more than once. But at this point, why would you vote for Kasich or Carson? Carson is my favorite on the stage, but his only function in the primary right now is to steal votes that could debunk Trump. Kasich is the same. Splitting that 15% between Cruz and Rubio, they both beat out Trump! Imagine what would happen if Cruz and Rubio decided to team up (Pres. and VP or VP and Pres.). It's very clear: most Republicans don't want Trump. But we'll get him unless we're careful, and then we'll always regret that near miss.
     Mistakes happen, and we will probably never (in mortality) reach the level of spirituality, self-control, and intellectual maturity we desire. But we have the potential to become as God is, and to do so, we will need to learn; we will need to improve. So let's start now, and let's do it intentionally. One day, I hope to stand before God and feel comfortable and safe in His presence. I want to look back on my laugh and smile at the time I spent with my family and the overall decisions I made. I will forever kick myself if I miss out on those joys, especially if I miss them nearly.

Mistakes, if handled correctly, can teach us great things. Here's a video about

why God may actually encourage us to mess up (not sins, mistakes):