Lately, I've been thinking about spiritual gifts and whether some people possess some kind of intrinsically faithful/spiritual nature.
My mom is so naturally faithful, she started walking by herself to the local Christian church when she was five or so. She joined the LDS church at age thirteen (when her parents finally consented) after several years of investigating. My dad, a twenty-plus year investigator and now a convert of seven years, bases the foundations of his testimony on his assertion that a man with as little education as Joseph Smith could never have written the Book of Mormon and all that. (He says he's grown beyond just that, but it's still an important component.) He does not read scriptures. It is difficult to describe his naturally unspiritual take on life.
I guess I'm somewhere in the middle, but I lean more toward my dad's side. I fundamentally believe in Jesus Christ and the atonement as presented in LDS theology (perhaps because of my upbringing). But I think my devotion (in all its wavering) is primarily based in intellectual interest. I enjoy putting the pieces of deep doctrine together, reading the scriptures and extrapolating meaning, understanding context by studying church history (warts and all). It's the philosophizing that is so agreeable to me. Seminary was a joy, because I had an extraordinarily well-versed scriptorian and theologian for a teacher. I prefer the Bible to the Book of Mormon because it is far more poetic and not nearly so cut and dry; I enjoy ambiguous biblical philosophy infinitely more that dull, re-hashed Book of Mormon storyline.
Add to all that that I have never received any kind of revelation. Not even in my most faithful days. I prayed then, to receive a witness of the Book of Mormon, to get guidance for life, to know who I should choose for my counselors in whichever position . . . but I've never gotten anything. I remember crying at one of those overly-emotional youth meetings as I bore my testimony and mentioned that I "have trouble receiving revelation." I remember another time at institute when some guy recited the first vision from JSH 1:17-19 in like Mandarin or something. After he did that, he said "now, even though that was in a different language, didn't you still feel the Spirit as I spoke, testifying of the truthfulness of the story?" My mind answered with a blatant, "Um, no." I asked my friend about it later, but she insisted she had felt spiritual confirmation during the recitation. And that was when I believed Joseph Smith was nigh unto deity. (Hint: I no longer believe that. Not even close.)
Perhaps I exaggerate. Perhaps the extent of my revelatory experiences is limited to following my moral compass. It goes thusly: "God is no respecter of persons." I like that. That resonates with my deeply-held belief that all people are equal. I believe that to be true. Or: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife . . . so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." Hmm. If God really insists that I be subservient to my husband, I would rather go to hell. This scripture goes against every fiber of my being. I believe this is a load of crap. In other words, I feel happy when I hear philosophies I like, and I feel bad when I hear philosophies I don't like. And I hear a lot of both in LDS theology (as well as other belief systems).
Of those classic faith-promoting stories, however, what with bosom burning, distinct feelings, any evidence of divine communication, I've got nothing. Now you may be thinking that because I'm having a faith transition, I'm moving backwards and "losing that which I had." You may think that I've just forgotten. But I haven't. As illustrated in the stories above, I was struggling with this even in my Molliest, Mormoniest days. And you devoted followers will remember my vain struggle for confirmation of my marital decision.
I was talking to my husband about this the other day. He was describing some profound revelatory experiences in his family, including visions, dreams, prophesying, strong impressions, answers to prayers, etc. Many of these were his own. When I expressed dismay due to my dearth of revelation, he suggested that perhaps I just lack the spiritual gift of receiving revelation. When I shared this possibility with a good friend of mine, she told me not to write myself off as spiritually inept - that it takes a lifetime to understand the way God speaks to us.
So here's my question: is it possible that I am spiritually incapable of having miraculous revelatory experiences? Is it necessary to have some kind of spiritual gift to receive revelation?
Mormons believe that everyone has spiritual gifts of one kind or another. These may include gifts of faith, healing, prophecy, discernment, knowledge, miracles, etc. It is acknowledged that there are more spiritual gifts than are listed in any of our religious texts. As the scriptures say, different people have different gifts; some people have more and some have less. If this is true, then I must have at least one spiritual gift in there somewhere. I've wondered if perhaps I have the gift of charity (if that's even one of them), but usually that one makes me more disaffected with my religion than less. What I need right now is some kind of faith-promoting gift.
I have skimmed some genome-wide association studies linking the ability to have spiritual experiences with genetics. I wonder about the possibility of genetically-encoded spiritual gifts. Could it be that my genes have predisposed me to a life of disgruntled, unaffirmed doubting and floundering? Are spiritual gifts even real? Do you, dear reader, believe in spiritual gifts, spiritual experiences, or the possibility of communication with God? If these things are real, then where are my spiritual gifts, and how long do I have to suffer until I find them? If ever I was in need of revelation, it's now.
Showing posts with label Things I Learned on Wikipedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Things I Learned on Wikipedia. Show all posts
Monday, May 21, 2012
Sunday, November 20, 2011
This Post is Rated "R" for Language
And now, dear friends, a lesson in vocabulary. You may be interested to know that the majority of insults aimed only at men actually insult women*. If you ever want to insult a man, simply diss a woman in his life. So, without further ado, a short list of somewhat-alphabetized examples:
Bastard: your mother was unmarried when she gave birth to you. A classic example.
Douchebag: you are that nasty thing that women use to wash their nasty (inferior?) parts. It actually means "you are a particularly annoying man who thinks you're all that, and God's gift to those silly little women creatures, when really you live in your mom's basement and photoshop abs onto your profile picture." I admit, this is one of my favorites. I guess I could justify using it by pointing out that it is meant to insult sexist people . . . right?
Lace-on-your-pants/Panty waist: Ostensibly refers to women's inferior clothing. You have a woman's sexual urges (you're homosexual), so why don't you just dress like a woman? Insulting men with women's clothing? Really? Compare to "wearing the pants in the family." My parents contributed this old-school insult.
Man up: don't be like a woman. Be brave, courageous, strong (women do not possess these qualities). Do the right thing; do what a man would do. Could be interpreted as "don't be like a boy/child." I prefer this definition, but it is sketchy since there is no "woman up" equivalent.
Mother f*cker: you had sexual relations with your mother. Accusing you and your mother of incest (the strongest social taboo worldwide).
Pussy: you are a woman's inferior genitals. Or, you are weak like a woman (so you must have her genitals. Penises confer all things strong and fearless). I absolutely abhor this word.
Pussy-whipped: you let a b*tchy woman control you, when YOU should be controlling HER. Why don't you just stand up to her and show her who's boss?
Son of a b*tch: your mother is a b*tch. Another classic.
Your mama jokes: somewhat self-explanatory. Your mother is [fat]. Your mother is [ugly]. Your mother is [stupid].
You play ball like a girl: Sandlot, anyone? Girls cannot play baseball because of their inferior muscles/spatial abilities/delicate clothing. You play baseball like they do.
C*nt: supposedly the most offensive word in the English language. Similar to "pussy", it refers to a woman's inferior genitalia. Read the interesting evolution of this word here.**
Woman/girl/lady: you are a member of the inferior and subjugated "second sex." You are weak, inconsequential, incompetent. You are meant to be used. You suck at life. You do not act; you are acted upon. Compare to "you're the man!" or "man up", above. These are probably the most hurtful to women because they are so commonplace. How is it okay to use "woman" as an insult? General authorities in the LDS church are constantly saying that women are incredible, that women are God's highest creation. And yet, I bet the vast majority of LDS men (and some women) have indirectly insulted women in this way before. The other day my father told me that men will never stop seeing femininity as a weakness in themselves, as insulting and less-than. I hope to God that is not true. Research shows that androgynous people are happier and better adjusted people. I applaud those men who are in touch with their feminine sides, and are not ashamed.
Which ones have I forgotten?
*Conversely, insults directed solely at women usually have to do with their sexual practices. But that's a post for another day.
**The word "vagina" literally means "a sheath for a sword" in Latin. The anatomical word for the birth canal has nothing to do with giving birth. No, it's just a place to put your two-edged phallic symbol. As such, some modern feminists are trying to reclaim c*nt, as it is more inclusive of the whole of female genitalia, instead of referring only to the bit that pleasures males.
Bastard: your mother was unmarried when she gave birth to you. A classic example.
Douchebag: you are that nasty thing that women use to wash their nasty (inferior?) parts. It actually means "you are a particularly annoying man who thinks you're all that, and God's gift to those silly little women creatures, when really you live in your mom's basement and photoshop abs onto your profile picture." I admit, this is one of my favorites. I guess I could justify using it by pointing out that it is meant to insult sexist people . . . right?
Lace-on-your-pants/Panty waist: Ostensibly refers to women's inferior clothing. You have a woman's sexual urges (you're homosexual), so why don't you just dress like a woman? Insulting men with women's clothing? Really? Compare to "wearing the pants in the family." My parents contributed this old-school insult.
Man up: don't be like a woman. Be brave, courageous, strong (women do not possess these qualities). Do the right thing; do what a man would do. Could be interpreted as "don't be like a boy/child." I prefer this definition, but it is sketchy since there is no "woman up" equivalent.
Mother f*cker: you had sexual relations with your mother. Accusing you and your mother of incest (the strongest social taboo worldwide).
Pussy: you are a woman's inferior genitals. Or, you are weak like a woman (so you must have her genitals. Penises confer all things strong and fearless). I absolutely abhor this word.
Pussy-whipped: you let a b*tchy woman control you, when YOU should be controlling HER. Why don't you just stand up to her and show her who's boss?
Son of a b*tch: your mother is a b*tch. Another classic.
Your mama jokes: somewhat self-explanatory. Your mother is [fat]. Your mother is [ugly]. Your mother is [stupid].
You play ball like a girl: Sandlot, anyone? Girls cannot play baseball because of their inferior muscles/spatial abilities/delicate clothing. You play baseball like they do.
C*nt: supposedly the most offensive word in the English language. Similar to "pussy", it refers to a woman's inferior genitalia. Read the interesting evolution of this word here.**
Woman/girl/lady: you are a member of the inferior and subjugated "second sex." You are weak, inconsequential, incompetent. You are meant to be used. You suck at life. You do not act; you are acted upon. Compare to "you're the man!" or "man up", above. These are probably the most hurtful to women because they are so commonplace. How is it okay to use "woman" as an insult? General authorities in the LDS church are constantly saying that women are incredible, that women are God's highest creation. And yet, I bet the vast majority of LDS men (and some women) have indirectly insulted women in this way before. The other day my father told me that men will never stop seeing femininity as a weakness in themselves, as insulting and less-than. I hope to God that is not true. Research shows that androgynous people are happier and better adjusted people. I applaud those men who are in touch with their feminine sides, and are not ashamed.
Which ones have I forgotten?
*Conversely, insults directed solely at women usually have to do with their sexual practices. But that's a post for another day.
**The word "vagina" literally means "a sheath for a sword" in Latin. The anatomical word for the birth canal has nothing to do with giving birth. No, it's just a place to put your two-edged phallic symbol. As such, some modern feminists are trying to reclaim c*nt, as it is more inclusive of the whole of female genitalia, instead of referring only to the bit that pleasures males.
Friday, October 21, 2011
National Chemistry Week!
Huzzah, it's National Chemistry Week once again! I nearly forgot because (for the first time) I'm not in a chem class during fall semester. For those of you who have yet to partake of the chemical fun, let me explain my joy.
In chemistry, there is a unit of measurement known as the mole. A mole is equal to 6.02 x 10^23 units (also known as Avogadro's number). The units can technically be anything, but chemists use the mole (abbreviated mol) to measure units of atoms, molecules, ions, etc. To celebrate their favorite unit of measurement, chemists come together on Mole Day. Mole Day festivities occur on October 23rd, from 6:02 a.m. to 6:02 p.m. (6:02 10/23, see the pattern?). One day, the American Chemical Society decided that Mole Day was just too much fun to limit to one day a year. As such, they instituted National Chemistry Week, which includes Mole Day. Let me list some of the engaging activities you may enjoy during this glorious season:
1. Mole Day parties. These are typically pot-luck style. Everyone brings food relating to the Mole. Some of the most common treats are baked goods with Avogadro's number piped on, MOLasses cookies (which can be quite humorous), chips, salsa, and guacaMOLE, and anything including Mexican MOLE sauce. Activities include poetry readings and performances of original songs relating to the Mole (I once performed a song like unto the YMCA song, titled M-O-L-E). Wearing geeky T-shirts is encouraged. I highly recommend hosting such a party.
2. Chemistry Magic Shows. These shows embody every child's wildest imagination of what chemistry entails: blowing stuff up, crazy color changes, kooky chemists dancing to disco music in tie-dye lab coats while laughing maniacally. . . oh yeah. Speaking of kids, these are a great way to get kids interested in chemistry/science. And they're usually free! So if you're into imploding cans, elephant toothpaste, loud noises, and fire, these are for you!
3. Liquid Nitrogen Ice Cream. If you have not sampled liquid nitrogen ice cream, you are missing out big time. It's so simple: milk, cream, sugar, vanilla. Combine in a stand mixer with whatever mix-in you desire (my favorite is Oreos). Then, get a dewar of liquid nitrogen and pour over the mixture. Instant ice cream! All of you organic granola people will love it for its lack of preservatives and fillers. The rest of us love it because it's so darn tasty! It is often served outside of the chemistry magic shows, or perhaps at the Mole Day parties. Liquid nitrogen ice cream is probably my favorite part of National Chemistry Week. I waited forty minutes for some yesterday. And it was worth it.
So if you haven't celebrated National Chemistry Week yet, go have yourself some nerdy fun!
How have you celebrated Mole Day/National Chemistry Week?
In chemistry, there is a unit of measurement known as the mole. A mole is equal to 6.02 x 10^23 units (also known as Avogadro's number). The units can technically be anything, but chemists use the mole (abbreviated mol) to measure units of atoms, molecules, ions, etc. To celebrate their favorite unit of measurement, chemists come together on Mole Day. Mole Day festivities occur on October 23rd, from 6:02 a.m. to 6:02 p.m. (6:02 10/23, see the pattern?). One day, the American Chemical Society decided that Mole Day was just too much fun to limit to one day a year. As such, they instituted National Chemistry Week, which includes Mole Day. Let me list some of the engaging activities you may enjoy during this glorious season:
1. Mole Day parties. These are typically pot-luck style. Everyone brings food relating to the Mole. Some of the most common treats are baked goods with Avogadro's number piped on, MOLasses cookies (which can be quite humorous), chips, salsa, and guacaMOLE, and anything including Mexican MOLE sauce. Activities include poetry readings and performances of original songs relating to the Mole (I once performed a song like unto the YMCA song, titled M-O-L-E). Wearing geeky T-shirts is encouraged. I highly recommend hosting such a party.
2. Chemistry Magic Shows. These shows embody every child's wildest imagination of what chemistry entails: blowing stuff up, crazy color changes, kooky chemists dancing to disco music in tie-dye lab coats while laughing maniacally. . . oh yeah. Speaking of kids, these are a great way to get kids interested in chemistry/science. And they're usually free! So if you're into imploding cans, elephant toothpaste, loud noises, and fire, these are for you!
3. Liquid Nitrogen Ice Cream. If you have not sampled liquid nitrogen ice cream, you are missing out big time. It's so simple: milk, cream, sugar, vanilla. Combine in a stand mixer with whatever mix-in you desire (my favorite is Oreos). Then, get a dewar of liquid nitrogen and pour over the mixture. Instant ice cream! All of you organic granola people will love it for its lack of preservatives and fillers. The rest of us love it because it's so darn tasty! It is often served outside of the chemistry magic shows, or perhaps at the Mole Day parties. Liquid nitrogen ice cream is probably my favorite part of National Chemistry Week. I waited forty minutes for some yesterday. And it was worth it.
So if you haven't celebrated National Chemistry Week yet, go have yourself some nerdy fun!
How have you celebrated Mole Day/National Chemistry Week?
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Horrifying Historical Parallels
I just had a revelation.
As of late, I've been reading a lot about LDS patriarchy in the bloggernacle (here, here and here). The typical line in church is that God ordained men to be patriarchs and preside over the family. "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families." As I was pondering this stance (and my own personal aversion to it), I realized that it sounds oddly familiar . . .
And then it hit me.
"Divine design" . . . Divine right! Does the common wording that prescribes the "role of men" not hearken of that which poor leaders of the past used to justify their power? I am floored. How did I not see this before? Historically, kings have rationalized their unrighteous dominion and assured their political legitimacy by asserting that God put them in that place of power, so they are obviously the best possible leaders. This doctrine is known as the divine right of kings, which we all know went well for everyone (sarcasm). Men in the LDS church (and others) use the same logic to justify the gender-defined lines of power and inequality. Thus, my new mantra when it comes to the "divine design" of patriarchy shall be:
Divine Right=A Silly Idea
Patriarchy=Divine Right
Patriarchy=A Silly Idea
Therefore, by the mathematical law of transitive relation (if a=b, and b=c, then a=c), it is proved. Amen.
Thoughts?
As of late, I've been reading a lot about LDS patriarchy in the bloggernacle (here, here and here). The typical line in church is that God ordained men to be patriarchs and preside over the family. "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families." As I was pondering this stance (and my own personal aversion to it), I realized that it sounds oddly familiar . . .
And then it hit me.
"Divine design" . . . Divine right! Does the common wording that prescribes the "role of men" not hearken of that which poor leaders of the past used to justify their power? I am floored. How did I not see this before? Historically, kings have rationalized their unrighteous dominion and assured their political legitimacy by asserting that God put them in that place of power, so they are obviously the best possible leaders. This doctrine is known as the divine right of kings, which we all know went well for everyone (sarcasm). Men in the LDS church (and others) use the same logic to justify the gender-defined lines of power and inequality. Thus, my new mantra when it comes to the "divine design" of patriarchy shall be:
Divine Right=A Silly Idea
Patriarchy=Divine Right
Patriarchy=A Silly Idea
Therefore, by the mathematical law of transitive relation (if a=b, and b=c, then a=c), it is proved. Amen.
Thoughts?
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Why I Love Wikipedia
This post begins the saga that shall hereafter be dubbed "Things I Learned on Wikipedia".
I love Wikipedia and you should too. There's power in having so much information at your fingertips. I really don't know how people survived before Wikipedia. Apparently some didn't; curiosity killed the cat you know. If the cat had had access to Wikipedia, he could have just looked it up instead of ignorantly engaging in lethal activities. I know there were encyclopedias before, but I defy anyone to find one half as comprehensive as Wikipedia (or as compact!). Wikipedia is the fountain of knowledge.
I was taught in high school that Wikipedia is not a valid source of information. I respectfully disagree with that opinion. Do you know how many times I have utilized Wikipedia in my undergraduate education? More than once an entire semester project was drawn from a Wikipedia article.
Example 1: Developmental Biology. An eight page single-spaced original grant proposal? Holy crap. My life is over. Uh, uh, choose an organ. Okay, heart! Wikipedia, don't fail me now. Search heart development. Result: big article on heart development! Score! Read article. Find this sentence. "Whether Dickkopf-1* and Nodal act directly on the cardiac mesoderm is the subject of research". A question that has been researched (aka sources!) but does not have a conclusive answer? Hallelujah! Proceed to research topic and write paper, referring back to Wikipedia article multiple times a day. Final grade: A. Wikipedia wins.
Example 2: Readings in Biotechnology. A ten page (mercifully double-spaced) review paper on pretty much anything I want. Well, that's not too hard--gene therapy! A great topic! Hello, Wikipedia, my old friend! What can you do for me today? Wow, that's a really good summary of the development of gene therapy! Look at all those references! What's that, Professor? More specific? Alright, Wikipedia, I need your help again. Gee, you reference two great studies of gene therapy for retinal disorders! Add that one retinitis pigmentosa paper Fellowstudent referenced in class and we've got ourselves a topic! Proceed to analyze the three papers (with numerous visits to you-know-where) and write the review. Final grade: A. Wikipedia wins.
Example 3: Bored to tears with nothing to do at work. Wikipedia, I'm about to die of boredom! Help meeee! I've been wondering about the Equal Rights Amendment ever since I read that the LDS church was against it. Search Equal Rights Amendment. Wow, Wikipedia, you really knocked yourself out with this one! Read article. Notice it discusses the involvement of one Coretta Scott King. Proceed to article on Ms. King. Read article. Wow, Wikipedia, this was one amazing woman! Look at all the things she did to fight prejudice and promote peace! Look at all of those awards she won, which you've so neatly organized at the bottom of the article! Result: time passed pleasantly, boredom remitted, and role model found. Wikipedia wins.
If I haven't yet converted you to Wikipedia, this surely will:
Nobody could say it better. Love you, Wikipedia.
*Note: The protein Dickkopf-1 was named by a German scientist. The name means "big head", because if you take this protein out of the system, the developing organism will have an abnormally large head. And yes, it is pronounced "dick-off". It is commonly referred to by its abbreviation, DKK1, for obvious reasons. I was once reprimanded in a class for using its full name. One American scientist presenting at a conference said, "Tell the Germans to consult me the next time they decide to name a protein I'm interested in."
I love Wikipedia and you should too. There's power in having so much information at your fingertips. I really don't know how people survived before Wikipedia. Apparently some didn't; curiosity killed the cat you know. If the cat had had access to Wikipedia, he could have just looked it up instead of ignorantly engaging in lethal activities. I know there were encyclopedias before, but I defy anyone to find one half as comprehensive as Wikipedia (or as compact!). Wikipedia is the fountain of knowledge.
I was taught in high school that Wikipedia is not a valid source of information. I respectfully disagree with that opinion. Do you know how many times I have utilized Wikipedia in my undergraduate education? More than once an entire semester project was drawn from a Wikipedia article.
Example 1: Developmental Biology. An eight page single-spaced original grant proposal? Holy crap. My life is over. Uh, uh, choose an organ. Okay, heart! Wikipedia, don't fail me now. Search heart development. Result: big article on heart development! Score! Read article. Find this sentence. "Whether Dickkopf-1* and Nodal act directly on the cardiac mesoderm is the subject of research". A question that has been researched (aka sources!) but does not have a conclusive answer? Hallelujah! Proceed to research topic and write paper, referring back to Wikipedia article multiple times a day. Final grade: A. Wikipedia wins.
Example 2: Readings in Biotechnology. A ten page (mercifully double-spaced) review paper on pretty much anything I want. Well, that's not too hard--gene therapy! A great topic! Hello, Wikipedia, my old friend! What can you do for me today? Wow, that's a really good summary of the development of gene therapy! Look at all those references! What's that, Professor? More specific? Alright, Wikipedia, I need your help again. Gee, you reference two great studies of gene therapy for retinal disorders! Add that one retinitis pigmentosa paper Fellowstudent referenced in class and we've got ourselves a topic! Proceed to analyze the three papers (with numerous visits to you-know-where) and write the review. Final grade: A. Wikipedia wins.
Example 3: Bored to tears with nothing to do at work. Wikipedia, I'm about to die of boredom! Help meeee! I've been wondering about the Equal Rights Amendment ever since I read that the LDS church was against it. Search Equal Rights Amendment. Wow, Wikipedia, you really knocked yourself out with this one! Read article. Notice it discusses the involvement of one Coretta Scott King. Proceed to article on Ms. King. Read article. Wow, Wikipedia, this was one amazing woman! Look at all the things she did to fight prejudice and promote peace! Look at all of those awards she won, which you've so neatly organized at the bottom of the article! Result: time passed pleasantly, boredom remitted, and role model found. Wikipedia wins.
If I haven't yet converted you to Wikipedia, this surely will:
Nobody could say it better. Love you, Wikipedia.
*Note: The protein Dickkopf-1 was named by a German scientist. The name means "big head", because if you take this protein out of the system, the developing organism will have an abnormally large head. And yes, it is pronounced "dick-off". It is commonly referred to by its abbreviation, DKK1, for obvious reasons. I was once reprimanded in a class for using its full name. One American scientist presenting at a conference said, "Tell the Germans to consult me the next time they decide to name a protein I'm interested in."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)