Does Everybody Play Games?

In reference to my previous post, I would like to suggest that the pressure we tend to feel in our interpersonal relationships is also frequently caused by a third party. All too often, we assume that we know what goes on in another person's mind--simply because that is what goes on in our minds. As a result, we tell each other the appropriate way to behave around a given person--or people in general--even if we have no more experience than the person whom we're advising. This wouldn't be so bad--as opinions add flavor to life--were it not for the advice we often give as a result being 1) very adamant, and 2) based on the assumption that everybody plays games, and therefore so should we.

This is why I don't ask for dating advice as much as I used to. Whenever I do express anxiety over a girl in whom I am interested, most of my friends offer a one-size-fits-all method for measuring my chances with the girl, as well as an ultra-conservative approach on how to behave around her, so as to maximize my chances with her. This particularly confuses me because these friends also claim that 1) girls aren't all the same, and 2) when a girl likes a guy, the guy can get away with just about anything. My friend Jan Marie recently sent me a cartoon that illustrated the second phenomenon. And let's not forget the fact that outside of these specific contexts, we are urged to just be ourselves.

So why do people insist on giving each other ultimate assessments of their relationships at such a volume that leaves little room for disagreement? We often don't even have to meet our friends' romantic interests before presenting our theory as absolute fact. And once again, it might not be so bad if those theories didn't consistently assume that our romantic interests are going to play games with us.

Yes, I understand that if a girl goes several days without responding to my phone call, it's a good sign she's not that interested. But if the same girl reassures me that she is simply busy and would love to go out when she has time, I don't think it's such a big mistake to trust her, not to mention trust how I feel when she offers such reassurance. When we override these initial impressions with generalizations about opposite-gender behavior, we inadvertently undermine our own judgement and self-confidence. That is something I refuse to do.

Pressure!

I'm in Denmark right now. I'm here visiting Jan Marie for the week, and I'm loving it! But I'll save my rants for Facebook.

A couple of weeks ago, I had a nice heart-to-heart with a friend of mine who expressed how much pressure she has been feeling over the past couple of months. She's new to the area, has started a new job, and is making new friends, among other things. She described herself as being pulled in a million different directions, which I do not doubt.

Upon having that conversation, I resolved to do my part as her friend to reduce said pressure. But I have since realized that such an endeavor can be just as bad if taken to extremes. In our interpersonal relationships, I don't think we realize that pressure works both ways. Not only should we not feel pressured by the actions of others, but we should also not feel pressured to make others feel less pressure...if that makes sense.

For example, I sometimes worry about the way I act around people. I have worried about saying the wrong thing, not smiling enough, and even posting the wrong thing on Facebook. But I am who I am, and while I respect limits and personal bubbles, I can't walk on eggshells every time I open my mouth. If I can't be myself around one person, I should go be myself around someone else.

I'd like to draw upon Elder David Bednar's talk from a past LDS General Conference about being offended, and suggest that the concept applies in these situations. To extend on that, not only does being offended deprive ourselves of many opportunities, it also deprives others of the comfort of being themselves. Of course it's okay to define our limits, but we shouldn't get stressed out when someone inadvertently pushes those limits.

Remember that we're all socially inept to a degree, so we need to cut each other a break. We also need to cut ourselves a break, as a lot of the pressure we feel is often self-inflicted. Surely my friend expected me to be nothing but myself, as she had given me no reason to think otherwise. In the end, it's all about trusting ourselves and each other to...well, trust us.

Pressing On

Life really isn't as monotonous as I make it sound when people ask me what's going on in my life. I'm just terrible at remembering the little things that have made life interesting. I was stoked at Halloween when I found a simple yet awesome costume at the last minute. I had decided earlier that week to go to my best friend's party as either the Count of Monte Cristo or the Phantom of the Opera. I eventually decided the latter would be more practical. Sure enough, I found a cape and a phantom mask. As I tried it on in the car, however, I realized it was considerably small for my face. Darn my six-inch forehead! But when I went to pick up a friend to go to dinner beforehand, I borrowed some scissors and cut off the bottom part that goes over your chin. Still good, right? Then the string broke. Oh dear! But my friend's landlord let me borrow some yarn. At first I silently scoffed at the idea, but to my surprise, it worked great. For the first time in four years, I would be going to a Halloween party with a costume to be proud of (Seriously, my Gryffindor/Death Eater costume two years ago was too confusing to constitute a 'proud' costume.). In retrospect, I realize that things worked out because, instead of lamenting over a Halloween wasted by my lack of preparation, I had proactively determined to make it work--and it did...with help, of course.

And I have also come to terms with turning 31 this month, which means I'll be joining the Charles River Ward. My roommates are throwing me a wake, which is very cool of them. It looks like we'll get a good turnout, too. People will be bringing their favorite funeral dish, and the Grim Reaper will be there to summon me into the CRW. Jan Marie, who moved to Denmark in August to do research for a year, is visiting and will be there as well. And I get to visit her in Denmark next month!

So in summary, life is very interesting. But most importantly, life is good. I attribute it to two things: reading my scriptures on a regular basis again, and getting rid of most of the drama in my life. Reading the scriptures is a no-brainer, while getting rid of drama has been surprisingly helpful. I don't stress out about the things I can't control, and instead work a little harder at those things I can control. I think I'm finally getting the hang of this life.

Integrity Comes in All Sizes

I like to read advice columns. Growing up, in addition to reading the Sports Page every morning, I would read an advice column by Ann Landers, twin sister to Dear Abby. I'm not embarrassed to admit this, because I would usually read it just for the drama in other people's lives. It was pretty entertaining.

These days I read a column on the Slate Magazine website called Dear Prudie; again, it's just for the drama/entertainment. However, this column is a little more entertaining than Ann Landers was, simply because some of the problems being discussed are so ludicrous and devoid of anything resembling common sense, that I compare them to those ridiculous Judge Judy lawsuits that I sometimes watch on YouTube--also for entertainment. And Prudie is certainly the Judge Judy of advice columns, delivering contempt and derision where they are deserved.

This week a woman wrote in to Prudie's Live Chat session, asking what to do about her friend who had loaned her 12 year-old son 75 cents for bus money on a field trip and was pestering him to pay her back. This woman couldn't see what the big deal was about 75 cents, and felt her friend was going too far. Prudie agreed, but also advised the woman that her attitude was suspect as well. She suggested that the letter-writer (LW) was supporting her son's refusal to repay the debt only because she didn't like the way her friend was handling it. Prudie sided with the woman's husband, who felt they should repay the 75 cents and be done with it. I agreed with Prudie's advice, but wanted to expand on it, so I posted a comment on it. Check it out:

Regarding the $0.75 drama, the LW is forgetting that children learn values through little lessons proportionate to their age and maturity level. Seventy-five cents may not seem like a big deal to an adult, but to a 12 year-old...well, in this case it meant a bus ride home, which is a big deal to a child. At that age I would have been scared to death at the prospect of being stranded miles away from home, so knowing how grateful and relieved Alex probably was that he didn't have to walk home--which was probably his greatest fear, even though one of the adults on the field trip certainly would have stepped forward and helped him out--he should show that gratitude and repay the loan just like an adult should repay someone for loaning them money for a plane trip across the country.

While Pam may have gone a bit far, she isn't just trying to teach Alex financial responsibility. She's trying to teach him integrity. When I was a child, anytime I loaned money to a friend--even if it was just a quarter--my mother would tell me to make sure they paid me back. On the same token, if I borrowed money from a friend, she kept on my case until I paid them back. Thanks to that training, anytime someone helps me out financially, I can't live with myself until I repay them--unless of course they refuse repayment.

I hope the LW doesn't think that her children will just wake up one day as adults and realize that it's important to pay people back when they loan you money. Her "It's just 75 cents" attitude is a dangerous slippery slope that could blur the lines of integrity for them. If 75 cents is no big deal, then how much is a big deal?

I'm proud to say that not only did five people "like" my comment, but my comment also received four replies--all positive. One reply read "I want to be Matt," accompanied by a smiley-face emoticon. How touching!

But really, how could anyone disagree with the principle of repaying those who loan you money or otherwise help you out? Unfortunately a lot of people do. I'm just glad that there are at least four people on that site (and Prudie) who get the concept of integrity.

No Apocalypse, But Prepare Anyway

Well, it has been five days since I was supposed to be ushered into Heaven with all the other righteous souls, leaving my wicked brothers and sisters to endure the calamities of the Apocalypse as they await Final Judgment, which is supposed to be in October. Either I did something terribly wrong that I completely forgot about and therefore forgot to repent of, or Harold Camping was wrong.

But I'm not writing this to poke fun at Camping's prediction; he reportedly feels bad enough already, according to the Washington Post. He's being ripped apart by the media, while blog writers and editorial commentators alike have suggested lawsuits be filed by those who invested millions in this man's Doomsday prediction. Such investors included Adrienne Martinez, a 27 year-old pregnant woman who "gave up medical school...to spread the message of May 21," and Robert Fitzpatrick, a retired subway worker who "spent his life savings spreading the message."

What I want to know is why this prediction needed any investors in the first place. Why did Camping need money to tell people that the end was near? Apparently, he needed to spread the word through advertisements, subway placards, billboards, etc, to make sure everyone knew what he and his followers believed was going to happen. In a previous interview with the New York Times, Fitzpatrick had reasoned, "I'm trying to warn people about what's coming. People who have an understanding [of end times] have an obligation to warn everyone."

Now I can't argue with that core belief. Section 88, verse 81 of the Doctrine and Covenants (LDS Scripture containing modern day revelation) states, "It becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor." Yes, if we know the truths of the Gospel, we must spread them. That is why the LDS Church has an organized full-time missionary program. And that seems to be what Camping and his followers thought they were doing. The problem is that their methodology was based on the assumption that most of us had done nothing to prepare ourselves for Judgment Day.

And they're probably right. We live in some wicked times, where good and evil are constantly confused and debated. People who simply try to live according to Gospel principles are mocked and/or criticized. But this isn't because we haven't had warning. We have. Prophets long ago warned us that now is "a time to prepare to meet God" (Alma 12:24). While no man knows when Christ shall come (Matthew 24:36), God has given us prophets and scriptures that tell us how to prepare for when He does come. There will be calamities, "but if ye are prepared, ye shall not fear" (Doctrine and Covenants 38:30).

I don't pretend to know what went on in Camping's mind. He may have intentionally defrauded his followers, or he may have truly believed in the formula he used to predict the Second Coming. But if he genuinely wanted to warn everyone that Christ was coming, I can see why he would feel the need to take such drastic, monetary measures. Many of us ignore daily the principles that God has given us, choosing only to turn our hearts towards Him at the last minute or when it is convenient for us. But He expects us to live our lives virtuously day in and day out, heeding the warnings that have been free all along.

Why Use One Word When You Can Use 1000?

So two weeks ago I posted my thoughts on Jon McNaughton's painting being pulled from the BYU Bookstore. I also posted several times on his blog before realizing that I was investing way too much time into an argument to which Jon had long since turned a deaf ear. I don't enjoy talking to walls as much as I used to.

But I continued to check his blog for a few days after my last post, wondering if anyone would offer any further insight. Someone eventually did--technically. I say technically because this person did not offer anything new. He had merely paraphrased Jon's explanation--which I had already refuted--in not the most verbose manner I had ever seen something paraphrased, but certainly in a manner more verbose than one could ever expect this explanation to be reworded. It shouldn't take too many words to say "I only meant to depict those who have contributed to our country vs. those who have led our country towards socialism with their corruption and greed. If people see themselves in that depiction, that's their problem."

But somehow, this other person turned that explanation into a novel, perhaps hoping that verbosity could adequately replace innovative thought. Now I can be long-winded sometimes, but not by using big words--which I certainly can--but rather by over-explaining myself. For the record, I'm working on that.

I find it quite amusing when someone feels they can dress up an argument with unnecessary three, four, and five-syllable words and not expect others to recognize it as the same argument someone already refuted. I can use the word 'utilize' too, but it doesn't do anything more than 'use' does. The only time you should use bigger words--even in creative writing--is when they capture the intended meaning more fully and/or they are concrete as opposed to abstract. 'Divisiveness', for example, is even less concrete than 'division', and it means the same thing. Otherwise you risk boring the reader and even turning them off with your implied desire to impress them with your extensive vocabulary. That is not the purpose of any type of writing.

When BYU Has the Audacity to Treat Everyone the Same

In the wake of Brandon Davies' suspension from the BYU basketball team due to Honor Code violations, it is easy for BYU's critics to accuse the school of placing religious beliefs before the Constitution, specifically our Constitutional right to privacy. It has been suggested that BYU's actions were oppressive towards those whose values don't necessarily coincide with its own.

Recently, however, BYU has demonstrated its impartial treatment of all students and faculty by pulling a painting from its bookstore that puts in a negative light anyone the author believes to be contrary to LDS principles. In his blog post entitled BYU Censors Artwork for Being Too Conservative, Jon McNaughton accuses the University of censorship when the BYU Bookstore decided not to sell prints of his painting. This painting depicts Christ at the Last Day, holding the U.S. Constitution, with patriots and families on His right hand and intellectuals (i.e. college professors, scientists, lawyers) on His left.

Now any Latter-Day Saint familiar with the scriptures (i.e. Section 29, Verse 27 of the Doctrine and Covenants) knows that we believe the righteous will be on Christ's right hand, and the wicked on His left. Furthermore, the painting depicts those on His left as suffering in agony over the realization of their unrighteous choices, while those on the right seem to be preaching to them. In other words, this was not unintentional.

McNaughton creates the political division for us with his suggestion that BYU pulled his painting so as not to offend liberals on campus. As a conservative former member of Academia, I take issue with that implication simply because I am not a liberal. The bigger issue, however, is McNaughton's implication that conservatism is righteous and liberalism is evil. The LDS Church has never declared any political loyalty, and for BYU, a Church-sanctioned school, to allow the distribution of a painting with such doctrinal implications, one would have to assume that the LDS Church endorses those implications. So of course BYU pulled it. It creates a hostile environment for a group of people that hold values McNaughton deems to be contrary to Gospel doctrine. For the record, General Authorities both past and present have been lawyers, professors, and even evolutionists. But I digress.

The worst part of McNaughton's suggestion that BYU is afraid of offending liberals is that such a suggestion would require him to ignore vast amounts of evidence to the contrary. If that assumption were correct, Brandon Davies would not have been suspended from the basketball team. BYU is constantly upholding LDS principles in the face of opposition and criticism. It is as if McNaughton expects BYU to protect his conservative values against persecution, but gets offended that the University would offer the same protection to everyone else. To make matters worse, he interprets this impartial treatment as instead being partial treatment towards what he deems to be liberal ideals.

It reminds me of when I was a little child. My older sister and I always fought, and seven times out of ten, my mother would side with me. There, I admitted it: I was spoiled. When she did side with my sister, however, I would accuse my mother of favoritism. McNaughton's protest against BYU's censorship demonstrates the same attitude. I don't know much of BYU's history, but I would hope that it protects the rights of "liberals" more than 30 percent of the time.