The Tribulation of the Choir Director

Let me walk you through my day: First, I had to cover for the Elder's Quorum President today in Ward Council. Normally that isn't a big deal, but since we have the early session this year, I had to be at the church at 7:00 a.m. That means I had to get up at 6. Again, not that big of a deal. However, since the choir was performing today in sacrament meeting, we had rehearsals before church started at 9:00 a.m.

Right after Ward Council, I called home to make sure everyone was ready to be picked up. No worries there. So I race home to find out that Benjamin had thrown up in the 15 minutes it had taken me to get home. Leslie had to conduct Primary today so couldn't stay home and I had to direct the choir so I couldn't stay home. We quickly decided that I would take the non-sick kids to sacrament and then I would come home and Leslie and I would switch.

With the kids loaded up we raced back to the church, thinking I was going to be late for the choir rehearsal. Two people showed up. Two. Normally no big deal. But we haven't practiced in the past few weeks due to several different issues. (Is Valentines day really an excuse to bail out on choir? I mean, church gets out at noon and if someone REALLY needs to be with their spouse that bad that they can't stay for the 45 minutes after church we have for choir practice, who am I to say otherwise?)

So there I was, sitting in sacrament with 4 kids wondering if anyone was going to bother getting up when it came time for the choir to sing. Lucky for me, they did. Not very many, mind you, but at least there were some. (I may be overreacting, but it seems like our ward choir has been getting smaller and smaller since I was called as the director. Meh...whatever...) We sang "Love at Home" - first verse in unison, second verse guys on melody and women on the alto line, and last verse in all 4 parts. We sounded like a typical small ward choir. I'm not judging, but I do have to keep reminding myself that none of us are professionals and with so few of us, I have to really scale back on my music selection (like strictly out of the hymn book. Luckily we have a fantastic piano player who is able to embellish the accompaniment beautifully.

A quick 15 minute run back home saw me rushing in the house and Leslie out of the house. The car engine was never shut off and I felt like high-fiving my wife while yelling "You're It!" Ben was asleep and the rest of my morning was fairly quiet. I think I was supposed to go home teaching today as well, but my companion and I never really touch base with each other and, since I wasn't really at church today, I didn't think about it until just now.

As a brief follow-up from my last post, apparently everyone in my entire world has a facebook account. Who knew? There is a lot of stuff that I just don't quite understand yet and (justified or not) there are a lot of things that the privacy freak in my head is screaming about. (i.e. I wouldn't mind playing a game or two on there, but when it asks for permission for some third party to access my personal information I tend to say, "Huh, what do you know? I didn't want to play that as much as I originally thought...") Overly paranoid? Possibly. I've accepted this about myself. I'm not sure how much I'll use it, but there it is. If someone wants to get in touch with me, they now can.

Thoughts on Warfare (LONG)

With all the news in the USA about interrogations lately, I thought I would write out an in-depth statement and reasoning of my views. Personally, I don’t care who knew what, or when. Those are nothing but political attacks and the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. So let’s start with some definite laws that I was taught during Military Basic Training and that we as Americans should unquestionably uphold: The Geneva Conventions.

Interrogation

Prisoners of war are only obligated to provide names, ranks, date of birth, army, personal or serial identification numbers or equivalent information. (Convention III, Art. 17)

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted. Prisoners who refuse to answer questions may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. (Convention III, Art. 17)

So there it is, plain as day. However, the legal rub is that in order to qualify as a “prisoner of war” an individual must first be classified as a combatant.

Combatant Status

Convention I defines combatants as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3).

A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)

Are the people we commonly call terrorists considered combatants or mercenaries? Further definition of “mercenary” is needed.

Mercenaries

A mercenary is any person who is specially recruited in order to fight in an armed conflict, who takes a direct part in the hostilities, who is motivated by money and is promised substantially higher pay than that paid to other combatants of similar rank, who is not a national of one of the countries involved in the conflict nor a resident of a territory controlled by any of the parties, is not a member of the armed forces of any of the parties, and who has not been sent by another country on official duty as a member of its armed forces. (Protocol I, Art. 47)

I imagine that those who make the decisions in the military define terrorists as mercenaries and thus afforded no protections under the Geneva Conventions. The more you look into the wording of certain parts of the Geneva Conventions, the more of a gray area it seems; a case could be made for either stance. I’ve only provided examples of one side here.

However, because of the nature of the War on Terrorism, my view (with the understanding that I have no knowledge of the nature of the prisoners’ capture) tends to lean towards them being closer to mercenaries. With that being said, do I agree that torture is okay, depending on the situation? Absolutely not. Do I think “waterboarding” is torture? Yes, I do. (I have lots of reason to think so, but I won't go into them at the moment.) Even if an individual may not legally fall under the protections of the Geneva Conventions, I truly believe all captured “terrorists” should be treated as prisoners of war, and thus protected as combatants. The ends do not (and have never) justified the means.

There must be an understanding that there are higher laws than man’s. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it ethical. We are all children of God (the good and the evil among us) and should be treated as such. Just because an enemy doesn’t extend to our soldiers the same respect doesn’t make it okay for us. We need to set the example and follow the moral laws we claim to hold so dear. To do otherwise makes us seem like immature kids who whine about having to keep their rooms clean because Billy’s mom doesn’t make him clean his room.

So what is this higher, moral law? Quite simply, it is summed up thus: Do unto others as you would have done unto you. The Golden Rule. Many religions around the world have a similar phraseology:

• Judaism – “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary” (Talmud, Shabbat, 31a)
  
• Buddhism – “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful” (Udana-Varga, 5, 18)
  
• Confucianism – “Surely it is the maxim of living-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you” (Analects, 15, 23)
  
• Islam – “No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself” (Sunnah)
  

Am I preaching complete pacifism? Not really. As a youth and young man, I had no problem with the thought of taking another person’s life to defend my life or that of a member of my family. I felt I had every right to proclaim a person’s life forfeit in such a situation. As a man rapidly approaching middle age, my views have altered somewhat. I have a greater understanding and appreciation of what I’ve heard called “an Eternal Perspective.”

A few years ago, I sat down with my scriptures to see if I could reason out my views of self-defense and general warfare and to find what scriptural support there was for such actions. Although I didn’t write it down at the time, I remember the general starting points and, with help from the footnotes in my scriptures, I can fairly accurately retrace my steps.

The first person I looked to was a hero of mine from the Book of Mormon: Captain Moroni, described thus:

And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his bretheren from bondage and slavery;

Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood. (Alma 48:11, 13)

Immediately following that is this:

Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives. (Alma 48:14)

It would be a very simple thing to stop there and think my question answered. It is even backed up by a footnote by the phrase “never to give offense” with several scripture references, the first of which leads to:

And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion. (Alma 43:47)

Again, more support for self-defense. The second scripture reference is 3 Nephi 3:20-21, which (perhaps having some modern application) talks about a chief captain wanting to go after a large band of robbers in the wilderness but was counseled to prepare defenses instead and wait for the enemy to come to them. From that, there are several footnotes that lead to a very apparent principle that warfare should be fairly defensive. There are plenty of examples of the “good guys” pressing an attack, but those were individual battle and not the war as a whole. A pre-emptive strike just because the “bad guys” are out there and might hurt you “someday” just isn’t supported.

Fair enough. I can accept that. However, something in the back of my head seemed to tell me that something was missing. I went back to Alma 43:47 and read the preceding verse, specifically the last part:

Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies. (Alma 43:46)

First offense? Second offense? Seemed to support the “defensive warfare” model that was developing in my mind. One of the footnotes in that second leads to something Jesus taught:

And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid him not to take thy coat also. (Luke 6:29)

Wait…what? We seemed to have switched gears because Christ is giving a pretty strong teaching of pacifism here. On reflection, though, it makes sense. Be “not guilty of the first offense, neither the second.” Further enlightenment comes from yet another footnote reference:

Now, I speak unto you concerning your families – if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded; But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.

And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundredfold.

(skip ahead a few verses)

And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for they righteousness; and also they children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation. Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought they life, and they life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou are justified. (D&C 98:23-25, 31)

It goes on with some very interesting verses on how the Lord fights His peoples’ battles. However, in light of this discussion, I come away with the following:

1. We are justified in defending our families and our liberties unto the shedding of blood
   
2. The higher way Jesus would have us take is to patiently bear the afflictions given by our enemies
   
3. If we continue to “turn the other cheek,” we will be greatly blessed
   

What would I do if my family were under attack? Honestly, I don’t know. To paraphrase an old saying, I may not start a fight, but I am justified in ending it. I've told my wife often enough that I hope no one ever hurts her or one of our kids, because I'd hate to go to jail for killing someone. A lot of times, I think I meant it - but I don't truthfully know how I would react.

From what I’ve read, it seems this same principle applies to nations as well as individuals. When it comes to war, Carl von Clausewitz calls war the “continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means” (On War, pg 87). I’m not entirely sure I agree with that. Should warfare be started just because someone doesn’t do what you want? If that nation attacked first, then by all means we are justified in doing everything in our power to protect ourselves. But there is a distinct line there – protecting our freedom versus removing the threat of attack. Again, pre-emptive strikes are just not in the program.

Many today claim war is nothing but an economic vehicle for enriching one group of people over another, or that the strong have a right to whatever the weak cannot hold. Of course I reject that completely; but what if an enemy takes control of some economic base (a commodity or property) that we as a nation feel is “ours” even if it doesn’t affect our life or liberty? Do we fight to get it back? The current war on terror seems to be a too much of a war of retaliation. Someone has done us wrong and we are going to make them pay. We are going to hunt down every threat to our people and eliminate it before they can hurt us again. It seems to fall too far outside of the bounds of a “defensive war” for my comfort. I feel we would be better served by following the council found in 3 Nephi 3:20-21 as mentioned above.

(Quick tangent: Speaking of economics and war, I’ve heard it said that war is good for the economy – after all, it got America out of the Great Depression, didn’t it? Well, one of my favorite authors, Frederic Bastiat, wrote an essay in 1850 called That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen, which, in addition to his book The Law, should be required reading for anyone in politics. Bastiat’s essay deals with the hidden costs associated with the destruction of the property of others. Read up on the Parable of the Broken Window; it’s good stuff.)

I think a lot of warfare has to do with Pride (with a capital “P”). Too many people (of all political persuasions) have become incapable of turning the other cheek out of pride or fear of looking weak. Humility and meekness are seen as faults and not virtues as they one were. The consequences of pride in the scriptures are clear: “Pride goeth before destruction” (Proverbs 16:18). It destroyed the Nephite nation and the city of Sodom. Saul became an enemy to David because of pride. It was because of pride that Jesus was crucified. It is because of pride that too many of our men and women have already lost their lives (and I'm not talking about just those in the military). And it is because of pride that I am now watching the leaders of my country slowly (or quickly as the case may be) tear at the very foundation of our society.

Well, this has gone on much longer than I expected. Still, I'm glad I finally took the time to write all this out. I think if more of our politicians would sit down and write out what they believed (if anything) and why they believed it (other than to get votes), we might be in a better position than we are now.

There is an old Chinese saying: "Unless we change our direction we're headed, we'll end up where we're going." Amen, brother. Amen.

#2 Pencils

Something came up the other day that has given me something to think about. Since long before I was born, it seems that every school supply list includes #2 pencils. That was the only kind of pencil I remember while I was in school and my kids use the same kind. Sure, they may look different (colors and pictures on the outside instead of the odd yellow color - a color I only ever see on #2 pencils by the way), but they are still #2 pencils.

Why? What is it about #2 pencils? Why do schools all across this country request/require #2 pencils? Because they have proven to be the best. They have stood the test of time. They are recognized as the standard.

"So what?" you may be asking yourself. Well, in this mortal life, there are certain moral values that have also stood the test of time. Some people really do believe that religion is "the opiate of the masses" and is nothing more than delusional fantasies or wishful thinking (or at the worst, hate-mongering). However, I don't "cling" to old ideas just because they are old (there are plenty of old, bad ideas), but because over the years, centuries, and millenia they have proven themselves to be the best way to happiness; that is what I want, to be happy and to have my family be happy. Sure, there are sacrifices to be made, but isn't it worth it?

As odd as it sounds, I am comparing my religious values to a #2 pencil. Dependable. Proven. Standard. And it comes with an eraser when you make mistakes...

Reputation and Religion

Awhile back I mention I was playing Diplomacy by email. Since turns only happen once a week, not much game time has passed. In any case, here is the map update:


(Since I can't get this new version of Blogger to NOT cut off the eastern portion of the map, here is a smaller version of the whole thing)


Again, I am playing Russia (the white pieces/territory) and 18 dots (supply centers) are needed to win. If you compare the old map with this one, you may notice that my former ally, the Austrian-Hungary Empire (red) is gone. Yup, he dropped the game and Italy gobbled up his territory. Fortunately, he left before I openly committed myself to the alliance and I have been able to strike up a non-involvement agreement with Italy. I would let him have the Austrian lands if he kept out of the Turkish lands. So far the agreement has held and I am finally in a position to crush Turkey...alone if need be.

Recently, the German player dropped the game as well and was replaced by someone who is...umm...not as good with the tactical decisions. Germany is on a severe downslide. England still isn't looking too good and, indeed, his time is short. France has made a bit of a comeback against the confused German troops.

Now, to associate this with the title of my post: Turkey and England both refuse to talk to me and their final messages were filled with...how to put this...uncomplimentary words. This was due to my having either lied or broken a treaty early. I don't think Italy trusts me - I can't say I trust him either, so that is probably healthy for both of us. My point is this: although the other players don't know anything about my religious views, it has given me pause to think if a game like this can be played in a way that I can answer the following question in the affirmative: "Are you honest with your fellow man?"

Yes, it is a game, but should that matter? In my life, right now, I could never blatantly double-cross someone - I value my reputation too much and would be ashamed of myself. I have done something like this in the past and I am still ashamed whenever I think about it, even though I was forgiven by the person.

In this game, it has stung to be called names that I probably deserved, but it doesn't reach the level of "shame" because I justify it as a "just a game." If you have ever watched the TV show "Survivor," it reminds me of all the bitter and hateful people at the end who berate and insult the two finalists just because they aren't there themselves. It's all sour grapes, but they may feel (right or wrong) betrayed by the object of their scorn.

So, are my actions hypocritical ? Perhaps. I still feel I can draw the line between reality and a game and act accordingly. But is the loss of real reputation (as perceived by others) worth the gains of victory in a game?

It's an interesting thought to think...

Mary's Talk

Yesterday at church, Mary gave a talk to all the Primary kids. It was not her first talk, but I'd thought I'd share what she said. She worked hard on it all last week and did all the typing herself. I helped to keep her focused on her topic, but overall the words are hers:

* * *
My talk is about testimonies. In the Book of Mormon a guy named Amulek is a good example of someone who shared his testimony.

When the prophet Alma went to Ammonihah, the people did not like him. Then Alma left. An angel came to him and said, “I am sent to command thee that thou return to the city of Ammonihah and preach again unto the people of the city.”

The angel went to Amulek and said, “Amulek, return to thine own house, for thou shalt feed a prophet of the Lord,” So Amulek took Alma to his house and fed him. Alma taught Amulek about Jesus Christ and blessed his family.

Alma and Amulek went to preach the gospel in the city. They met Zeezrom who did not believe in Jesus Christ. He tried to confuse and trick Amulek into saying that there is no Christ.

Even though Amulek was a new member of the Church, he still knew that Jesus Christ was real. He gave his testimony about Jesus. Because of his testimony, Zeezrom believed in Jesus Christ.

I know that the Church is true, and I believe in Jesus Christ. If we share our testimonies with others they will believe in Jesus too. Amen.

Old Counsel, New Format

"Keep a journal or portions, as you go along in life, a record that can be woven into a Book of Remembrance, telling of difficulties you have been able to overcome, challenges met. Express your inward feelings and thankfulness. These are part of your Book of Remembrance passed on to your children and decendants..."

Such was the councel given to me in September of 1992. I have been pretty diligent in ignoring this over the past thirteen years - which, in hindsight, is unfortunate. Over the course of a nearly a decade and a half, I have dropped out of college several times, joined the military, gotten married, had four children, and moved more times than I care to think about. A lot has happened to have not recorded it anywhere. I still have my memories, but with each passing year they are subtly changed with what my father-in-law calls "reconstructive memory."

So this is my attempt to remedy the situation.

I admit that it is a little daunting to put this out where anyone can read it. I have my reasons, which I may or may not share at some point in the future. Although I used to consider myself fairly computer-savvy, I have only recently become aware of blogs. I have been out of the loop for a long time...and I can't say I miss it. I left the computer field in order to have more time to spend with my growing family. The irony is, perhaps, that I still don't spend as much time with my children as I should.

Having faults is a part of mortality - and this is my story...