Final Thoughts on Atlas Shrugged

Last week I read the final page of Atlas Shrugged.  I confess it was something of a relief to be done with the book.  I enjoyed it very much, but Ms. Rand has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer and after nearly 1200 pages of being beaten about the head and shoulders with her ideas I was ready to be done and move on.  In fairness, my complaints about the book and its redundancy pale in comparison to the compliments I would pay the book.  As mentioned before, this book made me stop and think on many occasions.  It provided a challenge--I am not able to take the philosophies espoused by Rand with a grain of salt.  She had serious things to say, and I felt it worth my time to give them serious consideration.  Though I do not subscribe to all the tenets of Rand's Objectivist philosophy, I must say that I believe much of what she says is right on the money.  So, what did I like and what left me empty?  Below are a few thoughts on each.

I took notes throughout the book and finally decided to record the most intriguing aspects of the book in a sort of index at the front.  My index reads as follows:

- Consecration / paradigm shift: page 82

- Importance of Need: page 143

- Developments -> Job losses -> New Opportunities (similar to Friedman's TWIF education concept): page 290

[I covered that topic in a previous post]

- Francisco's Money speech: pages 410-415

- Purpose of Government: pages 576-577; 1062-1063

- Impacts of Socialism (consecration): pages 660-670

- John Galt story: pages 671-672

- Scorn for faith, hope and charity: page 742

[I also covered this topic in a previous post]

- Definition of happiness: page 1014

- Refutation of Original Sin: page 1026

- The reality of self loathing: page 1046

I don't have the inclination to discuss all of the above at length, but I will take the time to explore a couple of those items in more detail.  First, I though the definition of happiness on page 1014 was fantastic.  The definition was provided toward the beginning of John Galt's 60-page speech outlining Ms. Rand's premise for the novel.  He states, "Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values."  I believe that is true.  If you live by the values you hold dear and are true to those values then you will have happiness.  If you live contrary to those values you will have misery.  Obviously, there is much action and work that goes behind those words, but the principle is sound.  The trick is to truly understand what you value most.  I think sometimes we confuse surface feelings and ephemeral dalliances for true values.  I certainly have at times.  I believe the world today would encourage us to sit down and think, no meditate, on our values and record them in a mission statement (thanks, Mr. Covey) so they can provide a guide for our lives.  If we spend the time, mental effort and, dare I say, spiritual resources we can arrive at our deep-seated values.  Such can them be our compass to happiness.  Achieving those values and resulting happiness is another question altogether.

At any rate, I appreciated the happiness definition because it made me ponder values and happiness and where I sit in relation to both.  Something that can cause such introspection is something to be appreciated.

Next, you will note that I mention the word consecration twice in my little index.  This is a topic of some import to active LDS such as myself.  I'm sure plenty of others consider it frequently, but I come to it with an LDS lens, and I won't try to represent my thoughts any other way.  This subject pervades Atlas Shrugged, and overtly, not in a good way.  Rand hammers home time and again the reasons we should never feel obliged to live for someone else or to provide anything to someone else without receiving value in return.  Pure evil is how she describes efforts to establish some type of society based on the principle of consecration.  In politico-speak we would simply say socialism or perhaps even communism, though that is viewed as a dirty word by many these days.  Rand certainly viewed communism as the most loathsome of evils and seeks to imbue her readers with a feeling of the same.

However, the fact of the matter is that consecration is at the heart of LDS theology.  It's not currently practiced, but it was attempted in the early days of the church and failed miserably.  Ultimately, we believe it will be the social structure that carries the day.  I, for one, have a hard time with the concept of consecration/communism.  I believe that I should be the one to choose how the rewards of my labors are disseminated.  I don't relish the thought of some governmental big brother looking over my shoulder and dictating to me what I will receive as a result of my efforts.  The fear, obviously, is that someone less deserving will be rewarded with the fruits of my labors, and I will be caught in a downward spiral of having no incentive to work hard because there is no reward for such as the rewards go to others.  When all diligent workers start to feel the same pain then overall productivity plummets and society becomes depressed, in every sense of the word.  This is what happens in Atlas Shrugged.

But, we must consider the premise on which the AS communism is constructed.  As I've said before, AS is Animal Farm on steroids.  Fraudulent and deceiving men head the government and ultimately seek not their own happiness, but the misery of others.  They disguise their motives by professing to only be interested in the good of the whole.  Rand disagrees with that philosophy on the face of it.  The only good to be considered is the individual good.  No one else matters--each should be expected to be concerned for his own good.  And, if each is so engaged then the ultimate result will be a prosperous society.  

Fine. I expect that is true, but the fact is that not all will be so engaged and, in fact, some are not capable of being so engaged.  Do we simply leave them behind?  From everything I have been taught the answer is no.  But at the same time, we should not trust their care into the hands of men represented by the AS government.  (Brief aside: thanks to my sister, Linda, for hitting me with Helaman 7:4-5.  Check those verses and you will see the type of men who ran the AS government).  

The result of all this is that I am left in a quandary.  I want to be rewarded for my work and have dispensation over how those rewards are allocated.  Generally speaking, I do not trust government to wisely allocate the rewards I have earned.  However, I do not want people to be left behind without any reward and recognize that I do not have the resources of thought or time to understand all the best ways to allocate my rewards for the best benefit of myself, my family and society.  In addition, I believe that consecration is a societal construct whose time will come.

Ultimately, I end up with two thoughts that I believe will cohabit to make consecration a reality.  One comes from my religious teachings and the other comes from Ms. Rand herself.

First, as I see it, the reason communism has failed is because the individuals at the top have been weak.  They were unable to truly implement the system and inspire the people.  Instead, they governed with fear and hatred.  No system will work in the long term with such an underlying philosophy.  Consequently, any true system of consecration must be led by someone who can truly be trusted and loved by all--not just for a week or month or year, but for eternity.  Someone who will not fall into the foibles of human nature or succumb to the temptation of power, but someone who will be true to the philosophies espoused by consecration and who can inspire others to be true to the same.  Only when such a person arrives can consecration be successfully implemented.

Second, in the end Rand believed that the Thinkers (those with the ability to save society in the AS world), would all work to their utmost abilities to derive personal rewards.  She expected those rewards to be in terms of money.  In fact, the $ would be the symbol of her society and gold would be the currency.  Strangely, I don't think she is too far off.  For consecration to work, individuals will need to work just as she envisioned--each to the best of her ability.  But, a paradigm shift will also have to take place in that money would not be the ultimate reward for such efforts.  It may be a vehicle for obtaining the reward, but it would not be the reward itself.  Instead, all would have to be willing to work to full capacity while seeking the reward that would benefit all.  In an interesting way, that is exactly what the Thinkers in AS would set out to do.  They were interdependent.  None would last long without the others.  They were a symbiotic society, and each knew that by putting forth his best efforts he would be able to enjoy the best efforts of all those around him.  

It's a paradigm shift if you will, but ultimately I don't see Rand's philosophy as opposed to the form of consecration that I expect will be successful.  The right leadership and implicit and complete trust in those around us will one day provide the society Rand envisioned . . . with consecration as its framework.

More Atlas Shrugged

I recognize my last post was pretty haphazard.  So many things going on in that book that I was just trying to get a general overview of where I am with it.  A few days after I last posted my niece asked what the book was about, and I gave her the following answer, "Probably a very simplistic description of Atlas Shrugged is to call it Animal Farm on steroids and approached from an entirely different perspective.  Socialism vs capitalism.  Sadly, the author seems to believe that where one exists there is no room for any aspect of the other."

I'll stick with that description for the overall theme of the book.  But there are so many sub-themes and fascinating aspects that I try not to get too bogged down with frustration in the overall either/or premise on which Rand operates.

In my last post I briefly alluded to one aspect I found very fascinating--because it elicited from me a comparison with Thomas Friedman's book The World is Flat.  Before delving into the specific topic I must confess I have not spent much time in reviewing TWIF to find specific quotes to back up my point here, so you'll have to forgive me for that.  However, one of the fundamental ideas I took away from my reading of TWIF was that Friedman believes we should stop all the hand-wringing about offshoring.  Instead of talking about the evils of offshoring we should embrace the opportunities it creates.  The basic way of doing so would be to invest more in education and encourage those whose jobs are at risk from offshoring to enhance their skill set so they will be better equipped to work in the new, flat world.  In short, the types of jobs that are being offshored are frequently the kind we would want offshored to allow people at home to turn their minds to something higher and more challenging.  Obviously, this is very difficult to manage in the short run for those who have just been laid off, but in the long run if we embrace the change, both individuals and our country will be far better off!

The comparison with Atlas Shrugged comes when Dagny and Hank discover the "super motor" that would have changed the world.  Dagny says to Hank, "Do you know what that motor would have meant, if built?"

Hank's response, in part, "Consider how many things it would have made easier and cheaper to produce, how many hours of human labor it would have released for other work, and how much more anyone's work would have brought him."

My mind fixated on how many hours of human labor it would have released for other work. Expected, coming from Hank, but there is no hand-wringing over potentially lost jobs due to this new development--only immediate thought for what else could be done given such improvements.  People would be freed to move on to bigger and better.  Let's challenge ourselves and be grateful for external events that force us to do so rather than whinging about changes to the world that was.  I enjoy the quote by Eric Hoffer:

"In a time of drastic change it is the learners who inherit the future.  The learned usually find themselves equipped to live in a world that no longer exists."

We must be prepared for, and be willing to embrace, change.  Changing what is happening around us can often be difficult, but changing our response to it is well within our grasp and should be something we practice.

That's it for today's thoughts on Atlas Shrugged.  I'm about 2/3 through now, and still enjoying it but recognizing more and more that Rand has put together a framework that could only exist based on the premises she has created.  In my mind she does not take into account the realities of existence and clearly no recognition of a higher power.  I found particularly distasteful her refutation of Paul's counsel to the Corinthians about the importance of faith, hope and charity--to be replaced by facts, proof and profit (Mulligan's speech while Dagny is visiting "Atlantis").  Obviously these things are important and should be pursued.  But, and this is my predominant issue with Rand's philosophy, they are not the only things that matter.  There is so much more to life, and concern for our fellow man must be one of those things.  

Will that result in us being taken advantage of?  Yes, at some point and in some way, absolutely.  Is that a price I'm willing to pay given our current societal construct?  You bet it is.  When facts, proof and profit become the sole aim of humanity you can count me out.  Middle ground does, and must, exist.  And this seems to be where we're locked in the constant struggle as a nation.  How do we determine the best middle ground for everyone.  No one's figured it out perfectly yet, and I'm convinced Rand's approach is not the panacea she would have us believe.

I hope to post more soon.  This book is so thoroughly enjoyable!  

Early Thoughts on Atlas Shrugged

My brother-in-law, Mike, and I don't see each other or converse frequently, but when we do it is always a rewarding experience for me.  Mike often challenges my thinking and makes me dig a little deeper into understanding why I believe what I believe--politically, socially, religiously--you name it.  One of our favorite topics is books.  Several years ago I mentioned to him I had recently purchased Atlas Shrugged, and he indicated his excitement to discuss it once I had finished.  Sadly, as of this past Christmas I hadn't even cracked the cover.  Mike and I spent some time together at Christmas, and I briefly mentioned that I was now seriously considering reading Atlas Shrugged.  Mike, in turn, raved about Walter Isaacson's biography of Einstein.  I got so excited about Einstein that I went out and picked up a copy in early January.  I'd been reading it for only a day or two when the following article showed up in my inbox with commentary from Mike included:

Jesse -

As you contemplate digging into Atlas Shrugged, I thought you would enjoy this piece tucked into the very last page of the very last section of today's Wall Street Journal.

As I suggested to you recently, the book has taken on a rather striking, and unfortunate, relevance as of late. 

Enjoy!

Michael

 

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

By STEPHEN MOORE

Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.

Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.

Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?

These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."

When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated -- always in the public interest -- into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to "Atlas," a Wall Street Journal headline blared: "Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices."

In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.

The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."

Ultimately, "Atlas Shrugged" is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand's political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear -- leaving everyone the poorer.

One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

Galt: "You want me to be Economic Dictator?"

Mr. Thompson: "Yes!"

"And you'll obey any order I give?"

"Implicitly!"

"Then start by abolishing all income taxes."

"Oh no!" screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. "We couldn't do that . . . How would we pay government employees?"

"Fire your government employees."

"Oh, no!"

Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as Barack Obama puts it.

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

The article grabbed my attention, and I have been whole-heartedly plowing through novel since.  For those unfamiliar with the novel let me start by saying it is over 1,000 pages long.  So when I say plowing through, I mean it.  I'm just over a third of the way there, and I must say I'm enjoying it immensely.  The characters are so extreme--in every way and in every direction--as to be completely unbelievable.  However, the overstatement of personality serves to drive home the point.  Ayn Rand is the author of the book, and through her usage of character development she seems to be stressing that only black and white exist--gray areas are for the weak who like to hide behind excuses.  At any rate, this approach makes for outrageous and wildly entertaining, if often frustrating, reading.  

Once I got used to the approach Rand took to character development I began to seriously think about the myriad messages she is sending.  I'm not going to take the time to delve into specific messages at this point (I hope to do a few, perhaps several, more posts on this book), but I want to point out that the book has made me think, and think hard.  Truly, this book is making me live up to the title and intent of my blog.  My mind is meandering all over the place--socialism, capitalism, consecration, greed, weakness, sacrifice, charity, money, power, motivation, effort, morality--it's all in there.  

Ultimately, I'm completely captivated by the main thrust (so far) of the novel--which I believe is to expose economic parasites while extolling the virtues of the intellect who applies his/her talent to production.  What happens when economic parasites completely overrun society and productive intellect is forced to carry ever more of the nation's fiscal burden?  An interesting email story on this topic landed in my inbox a few years ago.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner.

The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men-the poorest-would pay nothing;

The fifth would pay $1:

The sixth would pay $3;

The seventh $7;

The eighth $12;

The ninth $18.

The tenth man-the richest-would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement-until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six-the paying customers?

How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man.

"Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

And that is the ride Ms. Rand is taking me on.  I'll have to leave it at that for tonight.  I recognize that I haven't included much meat of my own analysis.  But my mind is still rushing in several directions about the contents of the book, and I need to let things percolate a bit more.  Let me note, though, that I have noticed that Atlas Shrugged and Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat share a few similar themes.  Better education is a key to so much.  I must remember to return to that thought in a future post.  

Suffice to say I am enjoying it because it is engaging and provocative, if frequently outlandish.  I look forward to discussing the book with others who have read it.  I'm clearly not a great literary or philosophical critic, but I think we're all entitled to share our thoughts.  After all, I've long enjoyed Edmund Wilson's quote:  "No two persons ever read the same book."

Long Time

Clearly blogging has not been high on my priority list for the last few months.  No real reason, my interest just waxes and wanes.  Given that it has just waned for several months let's hope some good waxing is on the way!

A few things actually compel me to record some thoughts this evening.  First, the inauguration of Barack Obama and second, some changes at church.

I may as well say up front that I did not vote for Obama, but I was not unhappy that he won the election.  And, as I have watched events since election night it seems to me that his presence in the White House may be able to bring this country together in way that hasn't happened since 9/11.  Trying times tend to focus our energies and attentions--just as 9/11 did.  Now, again, we are faced with trying times and Obama has a singular opportunity to take advantage of the nation's collective attention.  When the people get behind a president, the president can make things happen.  The question is whether they are the right things.  And, honestly, it's pretty close to impossible to know in the heat of the moment when something is right from a historical perspective.  Obama has my attention and my admiration.  I hope he will also have my long-term gratitude.

The inauguration itself was beautiful, in my opinion.  I've spent my share of time on the National Mall in DC, and it was simply stunning to see so many people gathered there today.  I loved the camera shots that looked out from the Capitol across the reflecting pond to the Washington Monument and all the way to the Lincoln Memorial.  All of it covered in people.  In Americans there to participate in history and to show support for our new president.  That by itself was very impressive.  Add to that spectacle the significance of the event and the grandeur of the ceremony, and it was a great day, indeed, to be an American.  

I loved Aretha Franklin's "My Country 'Tis of Thee," and the subtle nod she gave to MLK with her quiet inclusion of references to Georgia and Alabama at the end.  I particularly loved the quartet performing John Williams's arrangement of Copeland's Appalachian Spring.  I was struck as much by the composition of the quartet as by the composition itself.  A Jew, an Asian, an African American and a woman combined to elicit from me a sense of wonder and joy based on the music they created.  I thought it was a fantastic tribute both in song and in appearance to what is possible.

I even enjoyed Justice Roberts's bungling of the administration of the Oath.  It simply made it feel more real and memorable.  Then came the speech, which was fantastic as is par for the course with Obama.  I'm really glad that he called us all out and basically said we were lazy and that the blame for the mortgage and financial meltdown belongs with all of us.  We all contributed to this society that idolizes greed and carelessness.  In fact those who were able to combine greed and carelessness often seemed to get most of the public's adoration.  With the mortgage benders so many of us went on simply because we could (never mind whether we should) we all contributed.  Now is our chance to show ourselves worthy to be called the descendants of our parents and grandparents and restore to our economy and this country the dignity and strength which have simply been taken for granted as a birthright for too long.  Yes, the speech stirred something in me as I had imagined it would.

Most of all I enjoyed the moment--I believe it was during the quartet--that showed Obama from behind and above as he sat looking over the assemblage.  Truthfully a tear ran down my cheek as I thought to myself, "I hope he can deliver on all of this goodwill.  I hope he can achieve those things he has set before us all."  I hope we can all work together to effect the change that he champions.

Along with 9/11 this may be the seminal American event in my lifetime to date.

I suppose that is enough on today's events.  Now to something more personal.  Given that I no longer attempt to keep a written journal anywhere but here, I feel compelled to record some feelings about the experiences I have had for nearly the past five years.  

In May 2004 I was called to serve in the bishopric of our ward.  I was very humbled by such a calling and felt wholly inadequate.  I'm guessing many of you can relate to those feelings--not unique or unusual.  It didn't take me long to realize what a tremendous trust individuals and families place in bishopric members.  Before being in the bishopric I would sit in the congregation with my family and look at the people around me and assume their lives were wonderful.  Sitting on the stand provides a completely different perspective.  I learned of people's struggles that I would never have been able to guess at.  I was fortunate to participate in individual and familial triumphs that provided incredible joy.  The experience was a true cornucopia of life lessons and spiritual growth.  

Earlier this month I was released from the bishopric.  People don't know whether to tell you congratulations or not with something like that.  In my heart I felt that I had provided the service in that calling that the Lord needed of me.  I learned many lessons and gained a better understanding of myself and the many things I need to do better.  We all have so far to go, and I gained an appreciation of that fact for me, personally, while I served in the bishopric.  

Our stake president asked me and Brenna to bear our testimonies on the Sunday I was released.  I don't remember much of what I said, but I do remember some of my thoughts.

While serving in the bishopric I saw and heard things that truly broke my heart.  But I also experienced things that brought incredible joy into my life.  And I experienced all emotions in between.  I had personal conversations with so many people--people I never would have made the opportunity to get to know if not for the calling which I held.  I found that I loved conversing with people about the things that were most important to them, and above all I learned that when it comes down to it, people just want . . . to be loved.  And that is what Christ provides for us all--love.  The Atonement is an act of perfect love and enables us to spread the love of Christ to all.  We can love and serve, and if we love and serve, eventually the Father's plan will be carried out.  Love and service coupled with an understanding of our purpose can enable us to achieve amazing things that benefit us as individuals, our families, our neighbors and society in general.  Not surprising that that is how the Father works.

Brenna said some beautiful things and paid me compliments that I don't deserve.  She and the children deserve all the credit in the world for being so faithful and supportive of me as I tried to do what we all believed was right.  I feel that we have been rewarded for the way in which we worked together as a family while I was in the bishopric.  I can't think of anything more precious than having a wife and children who love you.  I believe that is the pinnacle of manhood and achievement.  I hope that I can stay there.

I suppose I should conclude.  I do so by returning to the things I learned while in the bishopric. People deal with struggles we would never guess at.  The power of the human spirit is remarkable.  I love the way Victor Hugo describes it in my favorite book, Les Miserables:

"[T]here are many great deeds done in the small struggles of life.  There is a determined though unseen bravery, which defends itself foot to foot in the darkness against the fatal invasions of necessity and of baseness.  Noble and mysterious triumphs which no eye sees, which no renown rewards, which no flourish of triumph salutes.  Life, misfortunes, isolation, abandonment, poverty, are battlefields which have their heroes; sometimes greater than the illustrious heroes."

Differences or Commonalities?

I am just entering the "war chapters" of Alma in the Book of Mormon.  I started chapter 43 this morning, and I was captivated by the information in the first several verses.  As background, the Zoramites had left the Nephites to join the Lamanites, and the two groups were preparing for war.

Now to quote verses 5 - 7:

And it came to pass that the Lamanites came with their thousands; and they came into the land of Antionum, which is the land of the Zoramites; and a man by the name of Zerahemnah was their leader.

And now, as the Amalekites were of a more wicked and murderous disposition than the Lamanites were, in and of themselves, therefore, Zerahemnah appointed chief captains over the Lamanites, and they were all Amalekites and Zoramites.

Now this he did that he might preserve their hatred towards the Nephites, that he might bring them into subjection to the accomplishment of his designs.

As I thought about these verses I noted that Zerahemnah had made a calculated decision to focus attention on the fringe elements of those he led.  The major portion of his people were assumedly moderate in their stance toward the Nephites, but he had a smaller, what I'm calling fringe element, who were murderously opposed to the Nephites and their way of life.  Consequently, Zerahemnah utilized this fringe element to stir up the people by constantly reminding them of how the Nephites were different and how the Lamanites should hate them.  As a result of the Lamanites being force fed such vitriol, they were persuaded to go to war against the Nephites based on the perception of the Nephites as advocated by the fringe element.  Differences were trumpeted at the expense of any similarities and war ensued.

It seems that such is the case with much of society both in this country and around the world.  The groups can be political, racial or religious, to name a few.  Too often in our society we hear only how and why people people in groups other than the one with which we identify ourselves are different from us.  We hear about disagreements and arguments and how one group is unfair to another.  Soon we begin to believe that people in other groups are very different from us.  We then might ensconce ourselves more firmly within our own subculture and not seek to learn more and look beyond what we have been told by those who are, essentially, fringe elements of society.  We hear from them because commonalities are not interesting--differences are.  What a shame.

I believe there is something larger at work here.  I believe that God has a plan for the people of the earth, and that He loves us and wants us to be happy.  I believe that He considers us all His children and that Christ is His son, who came to make it possible for us to return to our Father.  Consequently, we are all brothers and sisters with one loving Father and a Brother who has done everything for us.   Above all else, we have that in common.

Sadly, there is an opposing force, and he seeks to thwart God's plan by promoting the fringe elements to ensure we don't see our similarities, but only our differences.  In his plan there would be no understanding--only fear and distrust.  How can we love someone we don't understand?  

So, how are we doing in our individual lives?  Republicans?  Democrats?  Whites?  Blacks?  Latinos?  Asians?  Muslims?  Jews?  Christians?  What do we have to say for ourselves?  Can we look past the fringe element promotions to see each other as we are--brothers and sisters?  Admittedly, I have a vast amount of improvement to do here, but I really saw something in those scripture verses I read this morning.  There are opposing forces out there, and they do have different aims for the human race.  Hopefully we can seek to find commonalities with others in our lives so as to enjoy the benefits of being part of God's family, for that is what we are.

Book Report

Just yesterday I finally managed to finish We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families. Yes, that's the title of my latest read. It's about the genocide in Rwanda during the mid-90s. Why would I want to read 350 pages on such an unpleasant subject? To be honest, I've wondered that myself. The author of the book, Philip Gourevitch, apparently wondered the same thing as to why he would research and write such a book. He starts Part I of the book by quoting from Plato in The Republic:

Leontius, the son of Aglaion, was coming up from the Peiraeus, close to the outer side of the north wall, when he saw some dead bodies lying near the executioner, and he felt a desire to look at them, and at the same time felt disgust at the thought, and tried to turn aside. For some time he fought with himself and put his hand over his eyes, but in the end the desire got the better of him, and opening his eyes wide with his fingers he ran forward to the bodies, saying, "There you are, curse you, have your fill of the lovely spectacle."

Initially, he offers that segment of The Republic without additional commentary, but then several pages in he incorporates the passage by addressing the reader:

Like Leontius, the young Athenian in Plato, I presume that you are reading this because you desire a closer look, and that you, too, are properly disturbed by your curiousity. Perhaps, in examining this extremity with me, you hope for some understanding, some insight, some flicker of self-knowledge--a moral, or a lesson, or a clue about how to behave in this world: some such information. I don't discount the possibility, but when it comes to genocide, you already know right from wrong. The best reason I have come up with for looking closely into Rwanda's stories is that ignoring them makes me even more uncomfortable about existence and my place in it. The horror, as horror, interestes me only insofar as a precise memory of te offense is necessary to understand its legacy.

Even before Don Cheadle's Hotel Rwanda was released (side note: I've not been able to bring myself to watch the movie all the way through--I'm too affected by it) I've had an interest in the Rwandan genocide and how such a thing could occur. What makes us hate? How far away is genocide or ethnic cleansing in other parts of the world? Why do so few seem to care or even be aware that such horrible things are a daily part of life for so many on this planet? Gourevitch hits the nail on the head as to explaining my interest. Ignoring such things makes me vastly more uncomfortable than learning of and mentally engaging myself in the utter incomprehensibility and gruesomeness of such events. Is there a way that my increased awareness might serve to somehow lessen future atrocities? Yes, that probably is a very arrogant, American thing to think. But so what? Why not hope that I can do some good in the world?

One thing I do know is that learning of such things has already helped me deal with my own challenges in a much more patient and grateful fashion. For instance, though the experience with Eliza was neither enjoyable nor something I would recommend, I felt that it was but a drop in the bucket compared to the agony and strife that millions upon millions of people in this world live with every day--with no end in sight. Perhaps that is a bad philosophy--others are much worse off, so just be grateful for what you have. Comparisons are generally not the best method for determining how to react to situations in your own life, but they can be instructive in helping one maintain perspective. And such is where I find myself--I have a bit of a different perspective on life now than I did before I started reading this book. And I am grateful for the perspective that has been gained. Can you give a higher compliment to a book?

I will share just one additional passage from the book that struck me particularly. Those who share my LDS faith will likely recognize immediately why it struck me so deeply. In this passage Gourevitch is recounting a conversation he had with Paul Rusesabagina (the main character in Hotel Rwanda) about Paul's actions during the genocide (where he was singularly instrumental in saving numerous lives through his diplomacy, courage and conviction--all while his own life was in as much danger as those he desired to help).

I wanted to know what had made Paul strong--and he couldn't tell me. "I wasn't really strong," he said. "I wasn't. But maybe I used different means that other people didn't want to use." Only later--"when people were talking about that time"--did it occur to him that he had been exceptional. "During the genocide, I didn't know," he told me. "I thought so many people did as I did, because I know that if they'd wanted they could have done so."

Paul believed in free will. He understood his actions during the genocide in the same way that he understood those of others, as choices.

Agency is a powerful force, and we always have that available to us--regardless of our status or situation. Easy for me to say sitting here, but I hope I won't be found wanting when the time comes for me to demonstrate how I choose to use my agency.

The book is devastating in so many respects, but it is also instructional in providing insights to the enduring power of the human spirit and the ability of one or a few to change the lives of many--for good or for bad. We all have that power and that opportunity. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking we don't, and let us be wise in how we employ it.

Sports Culture

Allow me a moment or two to vent here. Recently DirecTV has teamed with Jimmy Kimmel (at least I think it's Jimmy Kimmel--I'm none too sure of the "man's man" celebrities they use these days) to promote the NFL package. I can't remember exactly what's it's called, but basically Kimmel leads in by talking about some NFL game last year and describing how one of the teams/players did something that any NFL fan would be shame-faced to miss. He makes it sound like history was made in the game such that the lives of 1 billion people in China were drastically impacted by the outcome of the game.

After he finishes with his breathless recap of the game he smugly looks into the camera and says, "And you probably missed it because you only get four games on cable. Heh, cable!" Then going on to extol the virtues of NFL Direct Ticket (or whatever it's called), and how DirecTV can save you from any such potential embarrassment this year. I mean, there is no reason to miss one second of any game. You can watch them all!

Well, that is a relief. Living in this backward country where your average Joe can only see four games--about 16 hours--of the NFL on any given Sunday is just depressing. How can we be expected to go on?

In all seriousness, this is simply a blatant example of egregious American consumerism, sloth and mediocrity. Those who know me recognize that I am a huge sports fan, and I have been known to squander large amounts of time in front of the TV worshipping the idols of the day. But, doesn't this simply take it too far? Do we really need to prove ourselves to Jimmy Kimmel by watching every second of every NFL game--or at least proving our manhood by having that option? How can the 12 - 16 hours already available to us not be enough? It just seems absurd that individuals would be willing to shell out large amounts of money to make every second available when the networks, ESPN, ESPN News and all the rest make it virtually impossible to miss a second of any game as it is.

In short, it just seems we could find something better to do with our time and resources. Our entertainment culture is careening toward disaster, and we are all simply along enjoying the ride. Jimmy Kimmel is the perfect pawn to drive the point home.

Hits Close to Home

If to do were as easy as to know what were good to
do, chapels had been churches and poor men's
cottages princes' palaces. It is a good divine that
follows his own instructions: I can easier teach
twenty what were good to be done, than be one of the
twenty to follow mine own teaching.
- William Shakespeare (1564 – 1616)

The Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene 2


You ever come across a quote that just hits you right in the heart? This one does so for me. I spend so much of my time learning and gaining knowledge--whether it be purely intellectual, spiritual or whatever. I enjoy gleaning insights from others and recognizing the proper approach to things. I then relish the opportunity to turn around and share knowledge and insights with my children, or anyone with whom I become engaged in philosophical or theoretical discussions. You know, telling the kids about the things they ought to be doing or mentioning to others some incredible insights gained from the scriptures or social commentary du jour.

Then I turn around and remember that though I have compiled so much knowledge regarding how things ought to be done and the proper way to live life, I am far too inconsistent in the application in my own life. I had an email conversation with my sister, Sandra, a few years ago that was a bit along the lines of this subject, and I concluded that the macro aspect of life is flowing along fairly well. I get in trouble with the micro aspects of life. I believe I have an understanding of where I want to go and the framework of how to get there. And, more or less, I am headed in that general direction, but some days are better than others--which is precisely the frustrating piece.

As Shakespeare notes, it's a straightforward process to instruct others on what is good to be done, but the actual doing is not so straightforward. I think in the common vernacular we say someone can talk the talk, but can they walk the walk.

Well, that's it. How are we all doing walking the walk? I certainly must improve. An approach I've been trying recently is to focus on one very specific area for improvement each day. That helps me to not feel overwhelmed with all my foibles at once, but allows me to seek to manage in palatable chunks. I've been very pleased with the results some days, but on days where I blow it, it's all the more devastating! Well, the only course is to keep working at it, eh?

Once again, Shakespeare hits pretty close to home.

Catching Up

Let's see, lots going on over the last several days.

Family

My niece, Rebecca, and her husband, Davis went on a road trip from Provo to Denver last week and stayed with us for a few days while they were here. The kids loved having their oldest cousin in town, and R&D were great with them. In addition, Rebecca is a nurse and knows a lot more than we do about taking care of premies, so it was fun to watch her hold Eliza knowing that Rebecca understood what a journey Eliza had taken to get here. The oldest and youngest grandchildren for my parents. Pretty cool! Come again, soon R&D. We loved having you here!

As an added bonus, with Nelson in town at the Dunfords, we had Tom, Nelson, Curtis, Davis and me all at Wednesday night basketball. Quite the festival! We played hard and had a good time. Davis and Tom can man the point, Nelson and Curtis are supreme at banging in the paint and hauling in the boards, and I just fill in where I can. It was a ball to play with so many family members.

This week Brenna and the kids have gone to Georgia. I took them to the airport Tuesday afternoon, and although Brenna was very nervous about traveling with the four of them, they all did very well. (We did have to have some serious discussions with them beforehand to ensure they wouldn't give Mom any trouble--and they didn't. They know how to rise to the occasion when they need to. Good job guys!) They've been loving Grandma and Grandpa's swimming pool and living the good life with their cousins. It's quiet here, but that brings me to my next topic...

Work

Once again, quarter end close is upon us. I thought I was getting out of the stress of quarter close when I took this new job six months ago. Not so. My job has morphed a bit, and I now have responsibility for reviewing some revenue calculations for multiple deals on a world-wide basis. Very interesting how things can be so different from one area of the world to the next. I delivered the same training to all Regions--US, Latin America, Europe and Asia Pacific, but the quality of submissions has varied drastically from one region to the next. You can really tell which regions believe this aspect of the accounting is important and which don't. I recognize it's a big headache for them, but it's also a key area the auditors look at so we must be thorough and consistent worldwide. It makes for a challenge when I have to send things back to some regions and ask them redo the work.

I know that's boring for most of you to read, but it becomes all-consuming for me for a week to two weeks every three months. Fortunately, I'm able to focus on other things for most of the rest of each quarter.

Church

A couple of things in this category. First, since last Sunday was the fifth Sunday, the Bishop presented a lesson on finances to all the adults. I wish I could report to you on how it went, but instead of attending his class, the Bishop asked me to present the same topic to the youth. In order to understand the magnitude of that request, please understand that we have around 30 active youth, and about 20 of those are young men. Plenty of Deacons and Priests. So, the audience was diverse in their attention span, interest level and ability to comprehend. We spent a very interesting 50 minutes together to say the least. I knew with such a topic that I couldn't reasonably expect to keep their attention on a consistent basis, but I also knew that various aspects of the lesson would be interesting and would stick with some of the youth. So I really made an effort to be patient with all the whispering and side conversations, and it turned out pretty well. Much of what we discussed was new information even to the oldest of the youth. We discussed interest and mortgages very briefly, and it was quite remarkable to see the shock register on some of their faces when I mentioned how much interest they could expect to pay on a 30-year 250K mortgage. Rude awakening. I also rattled them with my old school sayings, such as "he's a loose cannon," and "toot your own horn." It was funny to see the blank stares and realize they had no idea what I meant when I said those things. Ah, the generation gap--it's getting wider for me.

The second item is one I'm quite enthused about. We have had a huge influx of new families in our ward over the past two to three months. (Side bar: most of these families are quite young, and Brenna and I are in the unfamiliar position of starting to feel we are in the middle-aged group in our ward. When we moved in six years ago, we were far and away on the young side of the ward--probably about the youngest family, in fact. Now, we are approaching median age, I would say. Pretty amazing!)

Anyway, the Bishop had a get together at his home on Monday night and invited the new families as well as a few long-term members. While there I was able to chat for a while with Ryan Gunderson, who is the owner of the Riches For Good blog at richesforgood.blogspot.com.

I have briefly mentioned in the past that I would like to get more involved in the world of microcredit and the like. Well, Ryan has a decided interest in that topic, and we're already making plans to get me more involved. Call it an effort to do something larger with my life. At one point, I thought I would get a job that would make a real difference in the world. Well, not to disparage my current job, but let's just say it's not the idealist's dream. So, why not make it a hobby and a passion. I'll keep you updated how things develop, but I really hope to be able to jump in with both feet now that I have someone around who can show me the ropes, so to speak.

I'm looking forward to it.