Mostly Done.

This is a treatise on Why I don't untie my shoes.

Not that it's a newsworthy topic, but when I asked Jen at the beginning of the month what she thought I should write about, this is one of the ideas she pitched.  So here goes.

First an image of a cute puppy.   He almost made it.  via.

Have you ever been in a situation where you had a job to do, and you realized that the constraints were so tight that you could do 50% of the job and get 95% of the benefit?  It sounds terrible, I know.  The words, lazy, slacker, unmotivated, and half-hearted come to my mind.  None of these are words that I imagine anyone wants to use to describe themselves.  They are the type of words that you'll never find on a resume, that you'll never hear a person pride themselves in, and that you'll probably never hear come from someone's mouth with a smile on their face.

BUT--

What about the other side of the coin?  You know-- the "glass half full" interpretation of that situation.  In the financial world, people get huge bonuses for ideas like that.  People use the words efficient, savvy, innovative, and advantage.  I see a whole side of the issue that says that given a limited set of resources, where can I get the largest return on a minimum investment?

I think this is how I see the "To untie or not to untie" debate.  To me, untying shoes that will just need to be tied again is somewhat of a waste of (time) resources.  In a world where clogs and slip-on shoes abound, why not just loosely tie the shoes so they can effectively be slip-ons?   Granted, there are athletic shoes that need to be cinched up to perform properly, as you shouldn't hike, run, climb in loose-fitting shoes.  But cruising around the office?  Or walking to school?  Sounds acceptably leisurely to me.  And what of the "You'll break the heel!" argument?  Well, it's a good one, especially if the shoe is tied so tightly that they do not approximate the comfort of slip-on shoes.  Therefore, if you have to wriggle and jam your feet to get the heel to slide into a tied shoe... you better untie them.  But if you can easily shoe-horn the footwear on-- I say go for it.  Leave them tied.

Shoes aren't the only domain where people historically give a half-hearted effort.  Here are a bunch of stereotypical and otherwise examples of people doing 50% of the work to get 95% of the benefit.  Consider:

• Make bed-- or at least pull the covers up.
• Close the bathroom door--or at least swing it so it obscures the toilet.
• Put the toilet seat and cover down--or at least don't leave a mess.
• Take the trash out at the end of the night--or at least get to it when it's full.
• Put away the folded laundry--or at least put the clean stack in your room.
• Put dirty clothes in the hamper--or at least gather them on laundry day.
• Throw away the gas station receipts--or at least get to them on semi-annual car cleanout day.
• Put things away--or at least stack things at the bottom/top of the stairs for the next trip up.
• Take care of the yard--or at least mow the lawn but not trim around the edges.
• Get all your shopping done--or at least get the food in the trunk and let the next person put the cart away.
• Get on your Sunday best--or at least sling a pre-tied necktie loosely over your unbuttoned collar.
• Put your toys away--at least so they don't get run over (even if they'll still get rained on).
• Write a great paper--or at least get the polished draft written without spell-checking.

See what I mean?  There are LOTS of ways that we go halfsies to mostly get the job done.  People have their "things", you know?  I put away my dirty laundry and clean laundry, but I don't tie my shoes. 

Crusades: How to have a holy war.

Here we combine yesterday's hinting at some of the fundamentals of the Crusades, last week's Veteran's day, and the Sunday school lesson yesterday about war/battles as mentioned in the scriptures.

The Crusades were a series of religious expeditionary wars blessed by Pope Urban II and the Catholic Church, with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to the holy places in and near Jerusalem. (Wikipedia)  Somehow, since Veteran's day was on Sunday, the talks last week at church wandered into the realm of life being hard for soldiers and families of soldiers, who give most of their attention to selfless acts of devotion to our country.  Not your typical Sacrament Service.  Lastly, yesterday's Sunday School lesson focused primarily on what parents can do to teach their children to be good Christians, which included elements of devotion, patriotism, and fulfilling expectations even when the going gets rough.

via.

I'm not normally one to think about war and fighting, as it generally makes me a bit squeamish.  Recently I have come to a greater sense of empathy, too, which makes it easier to see the human side of an "enemy".  But, with all this talking of war, I wanted to discover what the Book of Mormon says about war.  

What I learned falls into three categories:
I. The Lord will add confidence to the righteous that He will deliver them out of the hands of their enemies.
II. War inspired by a better cause, e.g. family, home, rights, religion, is a duty of believers.
III. Wars of aggression will never be sanctioned by God.

These are the verses I read which taught me these directives:
Alma 58:11-12

11 Yea, and it came to pass that the Lord our God did visit us with assurances that he would deliver us; yea, insomuch that he did speak peace to our souls, and did grant unto us great faith, and did cause us that we should hope for our ^adeliverance in him.
 12 And we did take courage with our small force which we had received, and were fixed with a determination to conquer our enemies, and to^amaintain our lands, and our possessions, and our wives, and our children, and the cause of our ^bliberty.

Lord Spoke Assurances of deliverance, and provided peace, faith, and hope.  The fighting force's conviction to conquer was for the sake of maintaining their possessions, and protecting the liberty of their families.  It was not, "a conquering we'll go" with the expectation of building a kingdom.  It was to allow them to continue to work for their sustenance and enjoy the freedom to make their livelihood.

Alma 43:45-47

 45 Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a ^abetter cause, for they were not ^bfighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their ^cliberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.
 46 And they were doing that which they felt was the^aduty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: ^bInasmuch as ye are not guilty of the ^cfirst offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.
 47 And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall ^adefend your families even unto ^bbloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion.

See?  I knew I remembered that it was not for monarchy or power.  They felt duty driven to defend their families to the end.  So I was interested to find out what this first and second offense was.

Here was one of the cross-references.  3 Ne 3:21

 21 But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord ^aforbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would^bdeliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands.

Okay, so one offense would have been to be the aggressor.  Deliverance was not promised if they aggressed, but only if they stood with their armies to defend their lands.  Ultimately, I suppose the truth of the matter is that we can do no wrong if we heed the Master's directive from Luke 6:29:

^aAnd unto him that ^bsmiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that ^ctaketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.

Then once you've been smitten twice, or had your cloke and your coat taken, then you are justified in saying "enough is enough"?  Well, as long as the defense is performed humbly, in a nutshell, without flaunting God's power as though He could be commanded to fulfill our short-sighted goals.  Mormon 3:9-11

9 And now, because of this great thing which my people, the Nephites, had done, they began to ^aboast in their own strength, and began to swear before the heavens that they would avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren who had been slain by their enemies.
 10 And they did ^aswear by the heavens, and also by the throne of God, that they ^bwould go up to battle against their enemies, and would cut them off from the face of the land.
 11 And it came to pass that I, Mormon, did utterly^a refuse from this time forth to be a commander and a leader of this people, because of their wickedness and abomination.

From this brief exercise, I think I've come to the conclusion that it's expected that we stand up for truth and virtue, acting humbly in defense of God's gifts to us.  If we do it His way, then surely we'll be on the successful side.

Interconnected.

Have you ever stopped to think about how deeply our lives are intertwined with others' lives?  These days especially where it is easy to maintain some sort of friendship across the country or the world.  Facebook and email makes it so you can send a note on a whim to a person you are thinking about.

via. 

I have heard some people quote studies on how many people you can  be connected to at any given time, like this one (120-130 friends, with a retort here).  This particular article claims that you can have reciprocal relationships with 1500 acquaintances at once, though only 150 is the size of the average social group.

Of course, sublevels exist even within that select circle. At the top of your social pyramid are the five people closest to you, most of them probably relatives. They are nestled inside the top 15, with whom you generally have weekly interchanges. Then come the top 50, with whom you keep up every month or so. Finally, there are all the others with whom you correspond in any meaningful sense. All the relationships require tending, although relatives retain their place in the hierarchy more tenaciously than nonrelatives do.

Then there was the note about how relationships fade.

I suspect that Facebook's one great contribution has been to slow down that rate of relationship decay by allowing us to keep in touch with friends over long distances. How long it will prevent relationships from fading altogether remains to be seen—social networking sites haven't been around long enough for us to tell yet. My guess, however, is that they will slow the rate of decay only temporarily and won't prevent relationships from dying eventually. What makes relationships really work, it seems, is "doing stuff" together. Catching up over the phone helps to keep the acquaintance ticking, but if at some point we don't get together—and sooner rather than later—then the relationship will fade, Facebook or no Facebook.

Have a read through the article and see what you think.  So for my analysis, here are the measurables that I have available.  Now, first of all, I am not much of a socialite in the online world.  I don't update my facebook status, like or plus things, tweet, or any number of other terms.  Maybe just a bit of a sentimentalist who wants to reach out to people I knew a decade ago and just say "Hi" once to let them know I was thinking of them.

Here's what I have:
301 Phone numbers for  265 Contacts
128 LinkedIn Connections
398 Facebook Friends
710 Gmail Contacts with 114 "Other" Contacts (Granted, 198 contacts are affiliated with my current ward)
125 this year's Christmas List
129 Google Plus Contacts in Circles

Of the 20 People most frequently emailed from my gmail account, I go to church will all 20, and I live in the same house as one of them.

I started thinking about this last week when I was flipping through my contacts list on my cell phone and found people I haven't called in years... but have still not deleted them.  It was interesting to see who was in there that I NEVER call.  And yet, some of them, I just haven't deleted because I like having the phone numbers on hand.  Just to remember.  Is that weird?

For example,

• A birth mother who we were corresponding with 3 years ago.  
• Our bishop from 6 years ago.  
• My Elder's Quorum presidency from 7 years ago.  
• My freshman roommate 13 years ago.
• Our next-door neighbors from 6 years ago.  
• My neurosurgeon from 7 years ago.
• A friend from growing up who I have never called.
• That couple we met on the cruise to the Bahamas that said "Come visit us anytime!"
• A favorite mission companion.
• My grandpa who passed away 3 years ago.
• A genius friend from graduate school.
• The phone number to my college research lab.

It costs me nothing to keep these numbers in my phone, so for now, they'll probably stay.  Is there anyone in your phone list that you never call?

Everybody's doing it. Or they should if they're not.

I was just thinking about some of the things I learned to do as a child, and thought, "these are things that every child should have a chance to do when they are young."  When I say young, I mean less than 10, for example.

1. Ride a bike.  I have met teens and adults that don't know how to ride a bike, and they are so convinced that it's too late now.  Riding a bike, if not efficient, is so liberating to a person!  To move quickly under your own power.  Mechanical advantage is a beautiful thing.  I learned on Shara's bie with big Y handle-bars and a banana seat, riding across the front yard on the grass.

2. Swim confidently.  This has come up at work among some of my international colleagues.  I would have supposed that swimming is a very cheap leisure activity that knows no boundaries.  On the other hand... perhaps in some countries, the concept of leisure is a lost art.  Americans learn to swim when their parents are attentive to teaching or enrolling in swimming lessons.  My lessons were at Woods Reservoir, Columbia, the Tullahoma City Pool, and Tims Ford State Park.  (Did those really span 4 summers? Or were they multiple lessons over some summers?)

3. Wash the laundry.  Honestly.  Remember in college when there was that one guy who had never done a load of laundry in his life?  Then he made it a month into his freshman year and he still hadn't?  It's really a shame that such a simple thing goes overlooked.  My mother-in-law is the queen of laundering, and can get any stain out of anything.  Jen even has a book called "The Joy of Laundering."  I remember doing laundry loads as a 10 year old, maybe even younger.

4. Play piano. Perhaps because this is so engrained in stereotypical Americana.  I learned to play the piano, and that was formative in my childhood.  Taking a few lessons, resisting practicing.  Learning to sing, play instruments, keep rhythm, read music.  Some say you end up smarter for the effort, too!  I'm not very good, but recently I have been sitting down a few times a week to plunk out a few children's songs on the piano, which the boys love.  If only I were as good as Jen... (on many things, at that!)

5. Keep a budget. But of course.  This is how young children learn the principle that their money has value, is hard to come by, and is not infinite.   I had a simple jobs list that made a big impact for me as a young child.  Even those years when I only earned $23.17 over 12 months.  The plan for me then was 50% savings in the bank, 10% tithing, and 40% spending money.  Simple budget, but it got the job done.  I've had to rejigger the numbers a bit now for married life, but we still have a strict savings/tithing/spending division.

All from tuppence, prudently
Fruitfully, frugally invested
In the, to be specific,
In the Dawes, Tomes
Mousely, Grubbs
Fidelity Fiduciary Bank

What else do you think a child should be able to look back on and say, "I'm glad I learned that as a child"?

Sacrifice

{Continuing my theme of Sunday thought topics}

Ian gave a talk in Primary several months ago on the topic of sacrifice.  One of the points basically said sacrifice is when you give up something you want in exchange for something you need.  {Yes, I know he didn't write the talk himself, and that his parents helped him formulate it.  I like how everyone has a chance to contribute, though, and even a 5 year old can speak to his peers of gospel principles!}

To me there are a couple of points buried in there.

1. Sacrifice involves reprioritizing and scrapping things which are good for things that are better.

I sometimes retell the story of a man who engaged me in discussion my first week as a missionary on the streets of Dunstable.  I told him I was sacrificing a couple of years to come teach/preach of Christ, and he said "Do you want to be here?"  then "Do you expect to get anything out of it?"  At my answers, he confidently declared that I wasn't sacrificing because I anticipated some benefit from my investment, even if it were to my character.  He had a point, to some degree.  My sacrifice had more breadth than simply surrendering my time as an offering to God.  I expected my efforts to have an outcome!  Consider this verse through a modern prophet, on the purpose of sacrifice: 

“I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy.  For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me” (D&C 98:14–15; emphasis added).

The result, though not stated explicitly here is worthy of dwelling with God and Christ.

2. Sacrifice these days seems easier than it did centuries ago.

In moments of quiet reflection, I have thought about this principle-- do I have such conviction that I would face death, as in the verse above, to stand for the things of my heart?  I don't anticipate ever having this as a real exercise, as our nation is {mostly} stable and such violence is almost unheard of anymore, but I still wonder, do I have the spiritual stamina of a martyr?  I suppose the point is that our conviction to Christ must be equal to that of those who will give the seemingly irreplaceable to be truly "worthy."  Tall order, isn't it?

To bring it closer to home (cause it's tough to think life/death situations in the abstract), if I apply it more to a realistic scenario, is there something I have that's irreplaceable that I would willingly give to keep a personal covenant with the Savior?  Money is replaceable, as are most things money can buy.  There are some things money can't buy, such as photos, journals, creative works, and intangibles like memories, experiences, and relationships.  I think it would take some convincing to give some of these irreplaceables, but I consider Jesus to be a fairly convincing fellow.  

On an even more basic level, I would benefit from thinking more often, "Is there something I can give right now that will be of ultimate benefit to the Lord?"  or "What can I do to make a positive difference?"  It's sometimes hard to think this way, because the answer is almost always yes.

3. There may be a balance to find in defining worthy sacrifices.

I once knew a man who was so selfless and compassionate, he would give even when he was lacking, and place a burden upon himself rather than having someone else carry the burden.  I asked him about it, with regard to him splitting his food budget with panhandlers.  He reminded me of how blessed he had been , and that he was confident that he would get by.  I didn't have much of a retort to that.

Is there such a thing as giving too much?  I don't know a good answer to this, but can think of some scenarios where giving could cause a problem.  a) Blood donation: there's a reason the Red Cross only wants your blood every 8 weeks.  b) Missing work without leave to serve others (jeopardizing employment), c) When obligations as a parent or spouse go unmet due to something "lesser", even if it is "greater" than many others, d) Neglecting self-care in exchange for working for and stressing over others.  There is a rejuvenation promised to those who give which will help fill the void, and provide a means for continued giving.  If someone is sacrificing to the extent that their family relationships, financial reserves, health, and prospects of providing for himself are unsustainable, then YES, there is an imbalance.  We cannot be of service to the Lord if our "well" has run dry.

4. Giving is a Godly Characteristic.

Think of it.  Heavenly Father gave his firstborn Son to mockery, scorn, and suffering.  He allowed his Son to give himself as an offering for sin.  From a modern prophet: 

“Without sacrifice there is no true worship of God. … ‘The Father gave his Son, and the Son gave his life,’ and we do not worship unless we give—give of our substance, … our time, … strength, … talent, … faith, … [and] testimonies” (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley [1997], 565)

Good LDS talks:  On the symbolism of sacrifice.  On three ways to let sacrifice help us follow the Savior: teaching our families, giving to the poor and needy, and sharing ourselves in missionary work.

President Hinckley taught a grand truth when he said: “It is not a sacrifice to live the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is never a sacrifice when you get back more than you give. It is an investment, … a greater investment than any. … Its dividends are eternal and everlasting” (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, 567–68)

In some ways sacrifice is a paradox: If I give everything I have, then in the end, I will have given enough.  Will there be anything left?  YES, because it will be apportioned back because of obedience to that law.

Halfway between here and there.

When Jen and I were seriously dating, one of the first questions was where do you hope to live someday?  We had talked about putting down roots somewhere and being a part of a neighborhood and community and playing a part in our town.  (That's what sappy romantics talk about, right?)  It's kind of a big thing to think about.  I remember thinking about where I would live when I was a kid, very superficially of course, and thought that Colorado was pretty great.  Most of that impression, I'm sure, came from driving out west and being astounded by the mountain scenes, because I don't know that I had any other exposure to Colorado besides that.  

I recognize that there are lots of people that don't have any reason to leave the town they grew up in.  This week, out of sheer curiosity, I googled for one of my friends Larry from 4th grade.  What do you know, he still lives at the same address I would bicycle to over 20 years ago when I wanted to go skip rocks with him.  (With his parents, still, perhaps?)  Then I also was trying to reach out to a local who gave me the wrong address, and I knocked on a door and asked if the guy knew Roger, and he said "I've lived on this street all my life, I know everyone here, and there is no Roger."  Interesting, eh?  ALL MY LIFE!  Maybe the more interesting claim is "...I know everyone here...", but that's a blog of a different color.

That's very different that our admirable friend, Bridget, who I admire greatly as she epitomizes world traveler in my mind.  I'm content to not be moving hither and thither, though I do like to see new scenes.  Family trips are nice enough, for now.

So anyway, somehow, we decided that boundaries were good, but so is proximity.  I was raised in a family where grandparents were 1.5 hours away at the closest, and a few days drive at the farthest.  Jen was raised in a family with grandparents across town at closest, and a couple towns over at farthest.  We had different degrees of involvement with our grandparents, but in both our cases, the connection was integral to our formative years.  Jen's mother was largely single-parenting, so she'd spend a considerable amount of after-school time with her mother's parents.  In my case, we'd travel to Columbia for all (most?) of the major holidays.  So we designed our ideal case:  Close enough to drive, but far enough that our parents would have to call first. :)  Hehe.  We also imposed a different-stake guideline, so our friends across the church region wouldn't be tempted to spread gossip to our folks.

Here's approximately what that map would look like.  Purple is too close, red is the ideal zone.

Incidentally, I did interview with a couple of companies in Denver, but neither of them felt quite right.  I had two friends from college accept jobs at my current place of employ, so was glad to make a trip to Boston to see how the fit was.  I was well received, and they were desperate for a few more BYU alums ("We're never disappointed in the BYU guys...").

So now, where does that put us?  We're about halfway between here (Jen's parents and maternal grandparents, 2 hrs north)

And there (Jen's paternal grandparents, 2 hrs south).

So that makes us a convenient stopping through spot! 

In the end, it's nice to be "on the beaten path" to family, and nice to have a little separation too, as we like to develop our own family holiday traditions at home here.

It takes a little more effort to get to TN, but it can be accomplished in a half-day without too much headache (again, probably worth a blog post!).

I wouldn't be disappointed if we ended up being here for a while, and I'm quite cozy with the idea of being a New Englander.  The fact is, I kind of feel settled down already, as I've checked out the town historical society DVDs from the library and know my way around town better than many of the other locals.  Isn't that when you know you've Arrived?