Image v. Substance

I gave this talk to a group of incoming freshmen a few years ago at BYU. I was thinking about it tonight and thought it was worthy of sharing on this blog (Really though, what isn't worthy of being shared on a blog?). My mind tends to get stuck on one topic for long periods of time, and this one occupied my thoughts for the better part of a year. This is the result. I should thank Kitt Tanner for bringing the idea to my attention while serving our LDS missions in France and even giving one of the examples I use at the beginning. I should also apologize for the lack of photos on this post. Let's be honest though. Anyone visiting my blog isn't coming for its design features.

*************************************************************************************

Aug. 21, 2007

I have one thought tonight. It is not as focused as I would like, but by and large it is all part of this same thought. My thought is that we can only be (emphasis on “be”) a true disciple of Christ—what I consider to be the highest mark of distinction— when we learn to emulate Him with all our heart, might, mind and strength and when we learn to do, think and desire the same things that He does.

We live in a world that puts a premium on image. We learn at any early age that appearing to be something often works when we feel that actually being that thing is asking a little too much.

Example, I am not a morning person. When I was young, my mother would have to constantly monitor me to make sure that I was right on schedule to make the bus. If my hair wasn’t combed and my shoes not on by 7:00, she would get after me — not a pleasant experience coming from my angel mother. I soon learned that by combing my hair and getting dressed long before I had eaten breakfast and brushed my teeth – things she couldn’t notice – I could trick her into thinking that I was further along than I really was. I was trying to have the image of something, when the substance wasn’t all that appealing to me.

But I am not the only one who struggles with this.

Americans spend thousands of dollars traveling to explore the intricacies of a foreign country and then when we get there, we stay in American hotels, speak English at the train station and eat at McDonalds. And when we return to the states, we tell our friends all about our “cultural experience.” It doesn’t matter that we missed the essence of the people and their culture; we got the image of being cultured when the substance of it all seemed less than comfortable.

The problem is that this doesn’t just apply to getting ready in the morning and travel plans; it has penetrated into the way we live the Gospel. We too, as Saints, have sometimes learned (from which source I am unsure) that the image will do when the substance of the matter is a little too demanding and stretches us a little too far.

Living the Gospel of Jesus Christ and becoming one of His disciples is not an activity, nor an event in which we temporarily or half-heartedly engage. The Savior wants and needs commitment. Indeed, it is the only way it can work. In a Gospel where the human soul is the only project on the Master’s mind, our going through the motions void of substance, becoming and consecration can never reach His desired ends.

As Elder Bednar said,

“In our customary Church vocabulary, we often speak of going to Church, going to the temple, and going on a mission. Let me be so bold as to suggest that our rather routine emphasis on going misses the mark. The issue is not going to church; rather it is worshipping and renewing covenants as we attend church. The issue is not going to or through the temple, rather, the issue is having in our hearts the spirit, the covenants, and the ordinances of the Lord’s house. The issue is not going on a mission, rather the issue is becoming a missionary and serving throughout our entire life with all of our heart might mind and strength. It is possible for a young man to go on a mission and not become a missionary, and this is not what the Lord requires or what the Church needs.”

My guess is that we have not fully realized this. We become so concerned with what others think about us that we forget that the only accountability that matters is the one held between us and God.

You see, there is no salvation in empty sacrifices, meaningless images and the opinion of others—either for those that we would have otherwise blessed had we sought to become who the Lord would have us be – or for ourselves individually.

Elder Bednar rightly places the issue on the substance of the matter rather than the image or going through the motions. It is the state of our heart, in many cases, that makes our offering acceptable to the Lord.

In the end, this problem of image and substance proved to be the major problem with ancient Saints in living the Law of Moses and especially the Law of Sacrifice.

As Elder Holland said,

“A fine man, a high priest, would teach his morning seminary class, and remember that it was the hour of sacrifice, and go up to the alter and offer his lamb and come down and scream at his wife and kick his kids and say, ‘I fulfilled my obligation. I stand before God with my hands clean and my lambs at the ready.’ And God in His heaven surely must have wept and shook His head one more time.”

“‘I desire mercy,’ says Jehovah, ‘not sacrifice. I am not really all that interested in dead little animals, but you somehow seem to forget the meaning behind the meaning; when I really wanted knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Don’t sing. Don’t dance. Don’t do any more that you’re doing. You have not understood.”

And so the Lord tried a new sacrifice. The meaning is the same, but a new symbol is used.Instead of asking for the fat of lamb, He asks for a broken heart and a contrite spirit. This is the meaning of discipleship. It is submission and consecration. It means becoming. How do we do this? Yes, it is through partaking the sacrament, but as it was with the lambs, going through the motions cannot bring salvation.

Continuing from Elder Holland, “Cain was the first to learn this lesson. Abel sacrifices his lamb and Cain says, “You can have these tomatoes and bananas, but I’m not going to offer any lambs. I don’t have a lamb. They are going to have to be good enough.”

And the Lord patiently said, “It isn’t the tomatoes and the bananas. It isn’t even the lambs. What I need Cain is submissiveness and obedience. And in this case, symbolic remembrance of my gift.’ Cain says, ‘That’s tough. You can have these tomatoes and that banana or forget it.’

And he did not understand that tomatoes and a banana would not bleed and die for him. He didn’t understand that a lamb, going like a sheep to the shearer, would silently, sweetly, respectfully, bear Cain’s stripes and shoulder his burdens. You know what became of Cain. The danger is that some portion of that is what can come to so many of the human family, I suppose including us, if we do not understand any better.”

When the Savior asks us “Come follow me,” it is not only call to do things similar to the things He did. It is a call to follow Him in thought, word, deed and most importantly substance. Ultimately it is a call to become.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks said

“The gospel challenges us to be "converted," which requires us to do and to become.”

The gospel doesn’t just challenge us to believe. It asks us to act; and even then it does not merely ask us to act, it asks us to consecrate and become converted. Someone who has become and is becoming a disciple of Christ lives for the substance of all things. He does his home teaching to watch over and care for the Saints the Lord has placed in His care, He goes to the temple to tie his heart to those past on, renew his own covenants, and perform saving ordinances for the deceased. He takes the sacrament to once again promise a broken heart and contrite Spirit to He who bought him with a price.

Becoming is a process. It happens little by little until the realization of the baptismal and sacrament promise — that they may always have His Spirit to be with them. Persons striving to become disciples analyze their own heart and the substance of what they are doing. As they follow Christ — in the true sense — the Holy Ghost will become a natural part of their being. It becomes wired into their system. That which is inspired of God becomes intuitive to them.

Indeed the challenge to become is a tall order — one that might make you feel like shrinking because of your own inadequacy. I assure you that you are surrounded by people just like you who all too often fall asleep during Church, pray a little too routinely and fail to fully remember the Savior’s atonement each week when partaking the sacrament.

The Lord knows and understands this – and yet He graciously continues to love and bless us for the times we do get it right. The key to becoming is not perfection. It is getting the substance of it all right more often than we have before. It is sacrifice. That is all that He asks of us.

I bear you my testimony that there is power in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but I bear you my witness that it is a power that comes in living the substance of salvation. There is no power in flimsy wishes and thoughtless rituals. The power of discipleship comes in becoming like the Savior—in short, doing the right things for the right reasons. As we become, the Gospel and the Holy Spirit promised by the Gospel, becomes intricately woven in our being.

Utah Caucuses or Cauci?

Does anyone know the plural for caucus? Let's see if we can work our way through this one.

Octopus--> Octopi

Syllabus--> Syllabi

Cactus--> Cacti

Bus --> Bi

It would seem that caucus' plural would naturally be cauci, but apparently journalists don't see things my way. I still think logic is strongly on my side, even if the AP Stylebook isn't.

Anyway, on to more important things.

I've had an extremely cynical view of Utah's Republican caucus/convention system ever since I was introduced to it. Utah is admired by other state Republican parties because of the immense control it has over which candidates it puts up in elections. In years past, any semi-well-organized candidate could flood caucuses and then the convention and win the Republican nomination without ever facing the public — essentially locking up the entire race.

Every precinct in Utah forms a caucus which can nominate three delegates to the state convention. Many potential delegates head into the caucus meetings knowing who they are going to vote to for at the convention — this was how Rep. Jason Chaffetz won his seat in 2008 — but, in the case they have not, they will be hounded by candidates seeking their support in the couple months leading up to the convention. Simply put, a lot of what happens at the convention is decided before the convention, if not the caucuses.

In past years, most precincts typically averaged between 7-20 people at their caucus meetings. With such low turnout, it is extremely easy to bring along five of your friends to vote for you and seal the deal. Well-organized campaigns do. You pack your guys into caucus meetings and make sure they have enough people to outvote grandma and grandpa who don't have anything better to do on a Tuesday night.

I'd even prepared the speech I was planning on giving at a future caucus meeting instead of telling other precinct members why they should vote for me as their delegate:

"I've won. That's right, I've won. There's nothing you can do about it. Not because I care so much about this state or about (insert air quotes) conservative values. Not because I'm a better candidate or because I am more informed than you, though I do think it's cute you showed up tonight. I'm just going to win. So, let's go ahead and wrap this up and take this vote so I can get home to my Cosby re-runs."

Then I'd have my 8 friends get up and give speeches saying, "I don't care about politics. I'm just here to vote for this guy." Eight times over. We take the vote and then go home. Everyone is happy.

I didn't like the system because it was too easy for the few to manipulate the election's outcome. These delegates from these caucuses then go to the state convention where if they get a 60 percent supermajority for one candidate (we're talking about the governorship and US House and Senate seats), the party doesn't even need to have a primary. The GOP candidate can essentially lock up the race and avoid general voters by effectively attacking these caucus meetings.

Admittedly, my fears were a bit overblown. Still, something always bothered me about the process. This wasn't how people were supposed to choose their leaders. I wanted deliberation, sincerity and reason to win political positions, not muscling through the system. I still do.

I got a refreshing perspective, however, when I talked to my mom Wednesday about her experience at her precinct's meeting. This was her first time going. My dad went in 2008, and that was the first time for our family. She said there were more than 100 people there. There were 10-15 in '08. They talked about issues that concerned them without yelling or fighting. Everyone knew one another and what kind of values they had. They gave sincere speeches about what they were looking for in candidates and to what kind of person they would support. Then, they opened it up for everyone to ask question of the potential delegates. It was open, sincere and deliberative. Everything I could want.

Listening to my mom, I was reminded about Tocqueville's visit to early 19th Century New England. In Democracy in America, he spoke of the enormous sense of community that existed in the area and how deeply it shaped its politics. The people were engaged with each other and with their politicians. They came together and reasoned together and then made sure their politicians heard their voices. The Americans were making an unprecedented experiment in republican constitutional government work — and it was working because they didn't trifle with their newfound freedoms.

Shortly after speaking with my mom, I thought of this quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

While this quote has its natural limitations, I think Jefferson strikes at the heart of what makes republics work. Jefferson was committed to education of the youth because he knew that only an educated citizenry would know and care enough about their rights to stand up and fight for them against government encroachment. Just like the caucus system, republics only work when people are engaged, when they care enough to make their voices heard. Unfortunately, this level of involvement is often to limited to when people are "mad as hell" and decide they "aren't gonna take it anymore."

Tuesday night was one of those times for Utahns.

But, I'm naive enough to think it doesn't have to be this way.

To Pass or Not to Pass

There is no rest for the weary, and there is no Spring Break for ... well, people like me. Between March Madness and the Health Care vote, I'm not sure this week could handle any more drama.

I keep checking out this page to see the latest vote count for the health care "bill." I put bill in quotation marks because nothing is finalized.

All House Republicans have said they will vote against the bill, which means 38 Democrats will need to defect to stop the bill. Right now, there are 37 reps in the firm no, leaning no and likely no categories. If all these votes break against the current bill, Obamacare opposition will only need one of the 55 undecided members to go against the president. As much as Democrats would like to make this bill not about abortion, it looks like that might be what kills it.

I'm more optimistic than I was two weeks ago, but I'm far from celebrating. Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has the votes to pass the bill, though she did throw in this odd possibility yesterday, which makes me wonder how many votes she really has.

****

March 17 9:oo EST We are actually moving in the wrong direction. One no moved to yes today.

Understanding Unemployment

You know you're becoming a nerd when you come up with a title like the one above and think that it's a good one. It's clear, concise and let's you know what I'm going to do. Who could want more?

This is admittedly late, but I wanted to address it because I keep hearing people pointing to the recent decrease in unemployment as evidence that the economy is improving.

Does anyone have a wet blanket?

A lot of the confusion comes from a misunderstanding and even misuse of the different unemployment indicators. When many people think of the unemployment rate, they think it's simply the percentage of people who aren't working. Unemployment, however, has a technical definition limited to those who want and are actively seeking work. It does not include people who have become discouraged by the bad economy and thrown up their hands. It doesn't include those who have gone back to school, hoping the economy will be better by the time they graduate. These people are not a part of the labor force and are therefore excluded from the unemployment rate.

This difference becomes important when you see puzzling headlines that claim a net 36k jobs were lost in February and yet the unemployment rate went down. This is only possible if people have given up looking for work. This decrease in unemployment should not be celebrated as it adds nothing to the economy.

Economists use an alternative gauge of unemployment which includes discouraged workers and those who have been forced to accept part-time work. The gauge is useful in circumstances such as this when we see that the economy is still losing jobs, but the unemployment rate is going down. This lets us know what is happening to those workers.

February's alternative gauge of unemployment was at 16.8 percent, up .3 percent from last month.

Obviously, politicians will quote the indicators that place them in the best light, even if it is misleading or exploitive. Journalists, however, should be more careful in pointing out what is really going on.

*********

Also, can someone explain to me how February snowstorms caused the loss in jobs? I guess mother nature snuck up on the White House with these winter storms (bizarre, I know). Admittedly, I have never run a business on my own, but it would seem that the snow experienced by the East coast would not have caused actual full-time positions to be cut. Sure, it delays production and the transportation of goods, but I can't see how an employer says "Well Bill, it's snowing today; you're fired."

Maybe I'm missing something.

Health Care: Die Debatte ist fertig

My American presidency professor says that if you ever feel uncomfortable with a political proposition, repeat it loudly in a German accent to reveal its true character.

For example, take the recent example of Obama's declaring the health care debate over. Said calmly the statement may not ruffle too many feathers. Said loudly, throwing in an extra "Ach" or "mein" and a heavily pronounced "v" and you have the makings of something truly troublesome.

The test nearly always works.

Admittedly, this is supposed to be funny and can certainly be misleading. It is odd how often it works though.

It seems to me that Obama's downfall (and Progressivism's blindspot) is their unwillingness to challenge the surety of their own course. Obviously, the idea that the debate is over presumes that there has been a debate and that an acceptable conclusion has been reached. As I chronicled a month ago, the discussions surrounding health care have been largely closed to the input of Republicans and the public at large. Where input was sought, you'd be hard pressed for evidence that it was seriously considered.

I had this notion confirmed when Obama welcomed Republicans for their input on budget issues, including health care, in the State of the Union. While seemingly bipartisan and open, he followed that invitation with this biting warning to those with opposing viewpoints:

"From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear a different argument – that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, and maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is, that’s what we did for eight years. That’s what helped lead us into this crisis. It’s what helped lead to these deficits. And we cannot do it again."

The condescension is overwhelming. It's hard to see how such a statement made its way into a State of the Union address. This backhanded mischaracterization is not that of someone seriously interested in welcoming conservative ideas. Something closer to the true message would have been revealed slowly in a German accent.

And so, Obama is now set on using a rare budgetary device to implement a plan Americans have repeatedly said they do not want. Reconciliation (sidestepping the filibuster so that only a majority in the senate is needed) has mostly been used in the last 60 years to enact legislation that has bipartisan support. In rare occasions, it was used in situations like this, such as when President Clinton used it to enact the largest tax hike in American history.

Conservatives should, however, take solace in that fact that voters rewarded Clinton's bold leadership by ushering in the Gingrich Revolution and giving the president a Republican Congressional majority that would give Clinton headaches the rest of his administration and make it one of the most fiscally conservative eras of recent memory.

So, while it appears likely that the Democrats will be able to achieve some kind of health care reform, they should do so remembering that forcing this on Americans comes with serious electoral consequences.

As a postscript, I should say that the bill is not a done deal. There a still many things that need to be worked out. It appears, however, that it will happen in one form or another.

Mark of Sincerity: Tiger Woods' Apology

Consider me among one those who were impressed with Tiger Woods' apology this morning.

The key thing I look for in people's apologies (and my own) is the degree to which they are willing to confess and forsake what they've done rather than explain and justify their actions. Many apologies come with addendums that scream, “I know you think it is wrong, and I know I am supposed to think it is wrong, but I don’t think it is completely wrong, and here is why…”

What struck me is what he didn't say. He didn't try to explain or justify why he was unfaithful. He didn't try to blame his wife or his career or point to mitigating circumstances. He said he was wrong and left it at that.

He even went a step further when he described how had begun to stray from his core values, developing a sense of entitlement and an idea that moral restraints no longer applied to him because of his success as an athlete.

At a time when most athletes and entertainers would like to pretend they can refuse to be role models (think Britney Spears, Eminem and Charles Barkley. Mostly anyone but Kanye West: "We rappas is role models. We rap, we don't think."), it was nice to hear Tiger admit that he had failed as example for kids and that he was working to get help.

It was refreshing to hear an athlete be so humble and forthcoming in accepting responsibility, to be more interested in clearing his wife's name than his own. I have no idea where this will lead for Tiger, but today was a sign he is moving in the right direction.

Honoring Calvin Coolidge

It seems odd to celebrate Presidents' Day. Why would we honor the cowardly James Buchanan in the same breath as the indispensable George Washington, the figure in whom the holiday is rooted?

At some level, it is disappointing that the holiday has become a celebration of all the stewards of the presidency. Instead of taking the time to honor and study Washington or Abraham Lincoln, this move only increases Americans' tendency to brush them aside with the other occupants of the Oval Office — the magnanimous and base swept off and forgotten together.

Surely I am naive to think that the change in our holidays is wholly responsible for the tendency to look beyond the Founding in Washington or the Refounding in Lincoln, but I'm guessing that it hasn't helped.

One of the benefits of the current holiday (I’m trying to convince myself here), however, is that it gives us an opportunity to look at some of the other figures who sometimes get looked over in the shadows of Washington and Lincoln. One of those men, for me, is Calvin Coolidge.

In 1920, the United States faced an economic depression that was, in many ways, worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s and early 40s. The actions taken by Presidents William Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, however, are the key reasons why most Americans have never even heard of the recession of 1920. It was a blip on the radar on the way to the unprecedented growth of the 1920s.

During Harding’s short presidency, nearly ten percent of workers lost their job. The president believed, however, that American business and not the government should take the lead in helping the economy bounce back. Mellon, in particular, thought that the 73 percent marginal tax rate on the country’s top earners decreased the likelihood that their businesses would be able to reinvest their money into hiring new workers. Coolidge said that “the wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful.”

In short, he got out of the way. By 1923, the unemployment rate had fallen to an effective zero percent and the national debt decreased from $24 billion to $16 billion by the next year. Americans’ earnings (controlled for inflation) increased by 16 percent from 1923 to 1929. By cutting taxes, Coolidge not only spurred economic growth and helped people gain employment, he also increased the amount of money taken in by the government. Just as has happened every other time taxes have been cut in the past 100 years (See Ronald Reagan reference in post).

It was a time of prosperity for nearly all Americans. With this economic expansion, blacks actually had an unemployment rate lower than that of whites and black illiteracy had fallen from 45 percent in 1900 to 16.4 percent in 1930.

Harding and Coolidge’s reactions to the economic downturn were the exact opposite of his successors Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, who tried to facilitate economic growth through restricting trade and increasing taxes. At one point, Roosevelt even proposed a 100 percent marginal tax rate on the country's top earners. It is hard to see why anyone would be motivated to work under such conditions.

The results of the two policies are largely clear. While the average college graduate hasn't even heard of the recession of 1920, the Great Depression became the painful mark of a generation.

And so, without taking away from Washington and Lincoln, I’m thinking back on Calvin Coolidge today and hoping the best for the future of our country.

****************

A lot of the information in this post is from Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man. It is a fantastic read on economics and the personal toll of presidential politics.