Christmas Music

I feel especially Scroogian, as far as my blog is concerned, because my sister has been cranking out awesome Christmas posts daily this month on her blog, and I haven't had anything remotely Christmas related here yet. Plus, her most recent post about Christmas music kind of stole my one idea of what I wanted to do. So I'll just offer up my belated and derivative thoughts on one of the main reasons this season is so awesome: the music.

I was struck again by the power of music in bearing testimony of Christ during my BYU ward's Christmas program two Sundays ago. In particular, two girls I know sang a beautiful duet of "What Child is This?" I don't think I'd ever heard (or maybe just never paid attention) to more than the first verse, which is pretty normal stuff about Christ being born in a manger. The second verse, however, jumped out at me:

Why lies He in such mean estate,
Where ox and ass are feeding?
Good Christians, fear, for sinners here
The silent Word is pleading.

Nails, spear shall pierce Him through,
The cross be borne for me, for you.
Hail, hail the Word made flesh,
The Babe, the Son of Mary.

I hadn't ever realized how scriptural the imagery was in this song. I love the words describing the Word being made flesh, and then that flesh being pierced for us all. Just beautiful. And, as Eugene England said in his great essay Easter Weekend, a spiritual song is most beautiful when performed by those who have a testimony of the Savior about whom they sing, and these girls definitely did.

While I'm at it, I'll just throw out there another phrase that I've always found interesting in the carol "O Little Town of Bethlehem," namely "The hopes and fears of all the years / Are met in thee tonight." The hope and faith of millions of people--both past and future--came head to head with their fears in that night, and it was the beginning of the triumph of the former.

So enjoy the many many wonderful Christmas carols to be heard at this time of year (but let's retire those past their prime). There is truly a lot to be thankful and hopeful for during this season. What are the most meaningful Christmas songs for you?

p.s. I think we hear a lot about carols that people find annoying or overdone, but I'd like to nominate "Bring a Torch, Jeanette, Isabella" as the most underappreciated Christmas song. Any others you'd like to see sung more often?

Disagreeing on Politics

I was very happy to hear about the LDS church's recent hearty approval of Salt Lake City ordinances that guarantee non-discrimination in housing and employment for LGBT people of that city. I'm now especially hopeful that last year's saddeningly rapid demise of the Common Ground Initiative will be reversed this coming year, especially with Elder Holland giving a measure of support to the idea that common-sense anti-discrimination laws would be a good thing to adopt statewide.

The liberal side of the political world was glad to hear about the Church's public stance, though many decided to see it more as damage control/PR/too little too late (one sterling exception was Andrew Sullivan--a man who has been a gay-marriage advocate for two decades).

But the most intriguing aspect of the recent news, to me, was the reaction from conservative groups like the Sutherland Institute, a Utah-based organization with primarily Mormons as members. The Sutherland Institute was one of the main opponents of the Common Ground Initiative last year (watch a great debate between them and Equality Utah at the latter's website). They released a statement after the LDS Church came out in support of the gay-rights ordinances, saying

As a public relations opportunity, the LDS Church’s statement before the Salt Lake City Council may assuage the minds and soften the hearts of advocates of “gay rights” in Utah. As a policy statement, it is problematic.

The statement goes on to argue that including terms like "sexual orientation" and "sexual identity" in laws leads onto a slippery slope that makes it easier for judges and lawmakers to legalize gay marriage. In addition, Gayle Ruzicka, leader of the conservative Utah Eagle Forum and member of the LDS Church, said "We expected the church not to have a problem because they've been carved out of it. The rest of us have not been carved out of it," and that the ordinances "discriminate against people who have personal religious beliefs."

I find these disagreements intriguing because I know many Mormons who disagree with Prop 8 in California and have their commitment to Mormonism questioned for not agreeing with the Church. Harry Reid (who is against gay marriage) recently ruffled many a Mormon feather by saying that the Church should not have gotten into the Prop 8 fight. Now I wonder what the reaction, if any, will be towards those who disagree with the Church's stance on gay rights because it is too "liberal."

I won't try to use the "You're on the wrong side of the Church's stance!" card as a bludgeon to tell these people to change their views, even if it would work to my advantage in an argument, because that tactic is repugnant to me. Coercing people to believe anything is wrong, no matter the goal. Especially in the political realm, we need to understand that everyone will see things a little differently, the Church included. Birth control, abortion, and illegal immigration are other issues where I know there are good members of the Church on both sides of these issues (i.e. more liberal or more conservative than the Church's position) who disagree with the Church's stance. Don't just make appeals to authority to win an argument--if your ideas can't stand on their own, they must not be very good.

If someone doesn't agree with the Church (assuming an honest, non-confrontational disagreement) about something, especially on a political matter, why should that threaten you or me? Let's talk about it, let us reason together. Let's try out that persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned thing. Let's be civil and respectful; Christian.


See also: A great article by Margaret S. Lifferth from the the May 2009 Ensign [how ya like that appeal to authority? ha HA!]

Of Dylan, Tevye, and Heavenly Mother

I was listening to one of my favorite Bob Dylan songs today, Shelter from the Storm, and thinking about how it reminds me of Heavenly Mother.

Aside #1: yes, I know, Dylan most likely wasn't actually thinking of Heavenly Mother per se when writing this song, but one of the beauties of Dylan is that his songs can mean a lot to a lot of different people. Aside #2: I realize that the third verse especially seems to be speaking specifically of a lover, but the other verses make it clear that Dylan is also thinking of a much more broad feminine subject. Bear with me...

There are two clear references to Christ in the song, one being a "crown of thorns" that the unnamed woman takes from the singer gracefully. And then, probably my favorite verse,

In a little hilltop village, they gambled for my clothes
I bargained for salvation an' they gave me a lethal dose.
I offered up my innocence and got repaid with scorn.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

I see this as an expression of our Heavenly Mother's love and concern for, in this verse Christ, but throughout the song for all of Her children. Whether we've been hunted, whether we question, whether we're hopeless and forlorn, whether we feel there's a wall between us and Her, she (alongside our Heavenly Father) is still waiting, loving, soothing--offering us shelter from the storm.

So where does Tevye come in? I watched Fiddler on the Roof today as a cultural experience for my Biblical Hebrew class (which I recommend to everyone--aside #3?) and it came to mind too as I thought about Shelter from the Storm. At the end of that film, Tevye is acting like his youngest daughter is dead, ignoring her completely, because she married a gentile. Now, to be clear, I don't think that our Heavenly Father does that to us when we act against His wishes, but I do think that with our cultural baggage we tend to see father figures as more harsh, cold, and stoic. In the film, it is the momma who is willing to call out to the wayward daughter (and the oldest sister too, let's don't forget) rather than the father. I think it is sometimes easier for us to believe that a Heavenly Mother would forgive us and love us than a Heavenly Father--again, not because that reflects reality, but because our culture conditions us that way in many respects. The idea of a Heavenly Mother helps us remember that God is great, He and She encompass all good traits, whether here in mortality we tend to associate one with 'masculinity' and another with 'femininity.'

That is the feeling that comes through to me when listening to this Dylan song.

PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Article

I'm an editor for the BYU Political Review this semester (it's a blast, by the way) and also an occasional writer. The latter is the reason for this post. By popular demand (of one older sister), I'm posting a link to my rough draft: read it here. It has some notes and random crap at the end that you can ignore, or not. And just so this post has a little bit of meat to, I'll quote a bit of it here as well:

The government's intentions are noble, and who are these armchair quarterbacks, these backseat civil liberties drivers, to criticize good-faith efforts to protect us? Sadly, the government itself has admitted that mistakes--sometimes small, sometimes serious--have been made in using these powers. One example is the use of the PATRIOT Act outside its intended sphere of use: So-called "sneak and peek" warrants that allow the government to search a home or business without telling the owners for up to 30 days afterwards have only been used 3 times in counter-terrorist investigations; the hundreds of other uses were in drug investigations. Also, the FBI's own Office of the Inspector General testified before congress that the FBI severely underreported violations and irregularities in their requesting of private records. Violations ranged from mundane mistakes to acquiring records beyond what even the PATRIOT Act allows, requesting information without authorization, and requesting records for people not connected to any investigations. ...

America faces real threats to its safety, and the PATRIOT Act gives the government many tools it needs to protect us. As the law currently stands, civil liberties are not sufficiently protected, but there does not need to be a choice between safety and constitutional rights. Senator Feingold (D.-Wis.) proposed the JUSTICE Act which would still give the government the powers it needs to fight terrorists while still respecting Americans' privacy. Sadly it was defeated, and the PATRIOT Act was renewed with minimal added protections for civil liberties. We have missed an opportunity to stand with the founders of our nation, who fought for the right of citizens to be free from broad government searches. Our next major chance for reform will be in 2013, when these same provisions will be up for review again.

So, any thoughts? How can I improve it? Does it explain my concerns effectively? Be vicious; this is a first draft, after all.

Ear Candy

If you want to hear good music, and I mean really quality music, please listen to Chanticleer. They are one of the most widely acclaimed male vocal groups around. If you own some of their stuff already, I plead with you to get out some good headphones and listen some more because--c'mon--it will be worth it. If, on the other hand, you don't have any of their stuff or haven't even heard them (shame!), then go find something post-haste. I'm listening to their gospel album Where the Sun Will Never Go Down and it is just stupendous. Oh my word it is good.

To paraphrase the words that Richard G. Scott has unfortunately never actually said, "If you have not listened to Chanticleer, I plead with you. Listen to them now. Do not delay. If you have thought, 'That’s not for me,' I plead with you to reconsider. Of all bands I treasure, this one was the first."

So there you have it. They were endorsed by a fictional General Authority quote. The thinking has been done. So go listen!

To bear one another's burdens, that they may be light

I just read an inspiring account of what is right with the Church and its interactions with its gay members. No matter one's political, theological, personal beliefs, I think we can all agree that this is a beautiful thing, and one that I hope is tried elsewhere as well.

The Five Love Languages

I think I'm just a johnny-come-lately, but I only yesterday found out about the Five Love Languages (pay no mind to the cheesy website design, they're actually pretty cool--read on!) by Gary Chapman. Basically, he posits that there are five basic "love languages"--ways to express and receive love. The five languages are (in no particular order):

• Quality Time - You find it really important to spend time with people and be together.
  
• Acts of Service - Small acts of service really communicate love.
  
• Words of Affirmation - It's important to have love and compliments expressed verbally.
  
• Gift Giving - Giving gifts is a major way of communicating love.
  
• Physical Touch - A hand on the arm, a back-scratch, an arm around the shoulder, a kiss--these are the best ways to communicate love.
  

It's important to remember that everyone experiences love in all of these ways, but Chapman contends that everyone has one that is more important than all the others, and that they can be (more or less) ranked for each person--think "good, better, best." Also, although for most people they are the same, it is possible to prefer to give love in one language, and receive it in another.

For me, it was kind of hard to pick my dominant language. I can definitely rule out gift-giving since gifts don't mean much at all to me, and service (while of course nice) is also not very high on my list. But the remaining three were harder. I finally decided on quality time being my number one--I really love to talk to people one-on-one and spend time with friends and loved ones. Words of affirmation are also very important to me--I sometimes can crave verbal praise and recognition, and when I hear them it just feels really, really good. Physical touch is also important for me. I love hugging, back-scratches, holding hands, etc., though PDA is gross. All that was validated by this quiz (no scientificity guaranteed), where I scored 11 on quality time, 8 on words of affirmation, and 7 on physical touch (service was 4, gift giving 0 :) ).

Like I said, I just yesterday found out about this way of looking at ways of communicating love, but I think it's a very useful tool. Just talking to my girlfriend about it helped me recognize a source of what had been some concern for me (that she's not a "words of affirmation" kind of girl) but also helped me realize that she expresses love through physical touch and quality time. It was also good to find out that we're both not very into gifts--phew! (but don't worry, I still give flowers or whatever on special occasions).

Overall I think it's very useful to recognize how family, friends, and significant others give and receive love so that you're not talking past each other. If one person constantly says "I love you" but the recipient of those words thinks talk is cheap and would prefer the other person just pitch in with the chores, you can see how problems could develop and both sides feel hurt. Apparently, you can also work on improving your fluency in love languages that don't come as naturally to you, which is a great goal, and one I'll be working on.

So, were you already familiar with the five love languages? Which one(s) is (are) your primary language(s)? Did you like all those parentheses I needed to make that last sentence exactly tolerant of whether or not you had multiple love languages? Have you ever been in a situation where two people had their relationship damaged by using two different love languages without realizing it? I'm anxious to hear your thoughts!