Politics and Moral Reasoning (An Argument for and against Myself)

I grew up in a deeply conservative household. Most of my family remains conservative or very conservative. I live in a very conservative state and work on a very conservative campus. Yet some years ago, during one of those wonderfully long conversations you have on road trips, my younger brother observed (in a bemused rather than a judgmental tone) that I was "kind of liberal." I laughed at the absurdity of it, because having just finished my first two years of graduate study, during which I had almost daily experienced direct or indirect disparagement of my conservative and especially my Christian values, I was keenly aware that by liberal standards, I was much more likely to be regarded as "kind of conservative." And so it remains.

It's true that I've moved to the middle, and am, at present, probably a bit left-of-center, whereas at the time of that conversation I was more right-of-center. I am, as my brother perceived before I did, "kind of liberal," and it turns out I kind of always have been. I did not experience my shift toward the political center as a shift away from my core values, but rather a more nuanced and self-determined understanding of their application in the world. What has most changed is that I no longer feel at home among conservatives; nor do I think I will ever really feel at home among liberals. Whereas the attacks on my perceived conservatism that I experience among liberals have been sly and insidious, the attacks on my perceived liberalism that I have experienced within my conservative community have been direct and vicious. As painful and exhausting as this frequently is for me, maybe this inability to belong, politically speaking, isn't entirely a bad thing.

This next paragraph is the only paragraph in which I'm going to mention the presidential candidates by name, and then I'm going to write instead about broader principles, because that's what I want to talk about right now--not which candidate was wronger, or more corrupt. I'm tired of that.

I've read a lot of statements this week to the effect that for democrats (or those who voted for Clinton, not all of whom are democrats), this election was about deeply moral issues, while for republicans, it was largely about the economy, or about preserving their way of life. Of course that's no more true than the inverse would be: that for republicans (or those who voted for Trump,not all of whom are republicans), this election was about deeply moral issues, while for those who voted for Clinton, it was about the economy, or about preserving their way of life. While it's probably true that for a lot of voters, this was about the economy, it's worth noting that regardless of their political ideology, most people believe economic issues are moral issues (and they are), and obviously, so is preserving a way of life. It may be true that some people did vote primarily out of self-interest, but I think that's as likely to be the case for liberals as for conservatives.

However, I've really only seen one side of this political divide argue that voting out of self-interest is at least potentially acceptable, and that's the liberal side. Liberals don't usually argue that they vote out of self-interest. Rather they complain that their political foes are voting against their own interests, and that they must really not understand the fact that they are doing so. The implicit argument is either that conservatives are inherently selfish, and/or that self-interest is a valid reason for political decision making. To the conservative mind it must follow that either liberals themselves vote not out of principle but out of self-interest, or that they regard conservatives with outright contempt.

Which is maybe why conservatives have scoffed at liberal moral outrage throughout this whole election cycle. And who can blame them? Liberals make regular sport of scoffing at conservatives' moral outrage, and justify it in turn because conservatives regard them as morally bankrupt. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

To be clear: I believe that liberals vote out of self-interest no more than conservatives do, but also no less (an assertion that is unlikely to win me friends on either side, so I'll just add that I include myself in this unflattering assessment). That is to say, of course people vote out of self-interest, whether consciously or unconsciously. But however rational a political argument from self-interest might be, or however necessary to healthy political life it might be that we analyze the ways that self-interest plays a role in political decision-making, as a persuasive tool for conservatives it is much worse than a non-starter.

Much has been written about the moral reasoning of liberals and conservatives. It is a truism that conservatives tend to think in terms of moral absolutes, whereas liberals tend to be more comfortable with casuistic moral reasoning. To the degree that such a generalization is accurate, it should be obvious why accusing conservatives of voting against their own interests is sheer folly, if it is not malice.

I remember an argument, many years ago, between a cousin and another one of my brothers. This cousin could not understand why, given that both my parents are disabled, and this brother is himself disabled, my family tends to vote for politicians who promise to cut medicare, medicaid, and social security. How could it be logically or morally consistent to vote against the very programs on which my family depends just to get by from day to day? But it is absolutely logically and morally consistent to vote against such programs, even if you benefit from them, if you believe (as conservatives do, with a great deal of political philosophy behind them) that they are beyond the proper purview of government. For conservatives, what matters is voting for what is good, not simply what is good for them. Liberal readers will be quick to point out that this is what matters to them as well, and they'd be telling the truth, too. But to liberals (at least to white, middle- and upper-class ones), it often seems that only they have the moral courage to knowingly vote against their own self-interest; they have so much privilege to lose, and they are eager to lose it. We all see through a glass, darkly. Sometimes the glass is so dark it's more of a mirror than a window on the world.

But if conservatives don't believe in casuistic moral reasoning, what right had my parents to take government handouts which they believe it has no right to give? Pretty much the same right that a liberal who votes for strong gun control would have to shoot someone in the face to save the lives of their children. Put in less visceral terms, even the most ardent conservative can't completely avoid casuistic moral reasoning (and I don't believe that, if pressed, many of them would argue that they should), but they prefer a more clear-cut moral consistency. They would prefer a world in which people are free to keep more of their hard-earned money and choose how to bestow it charitably, rather than have the government take it and decide who deserves to have it, and how much, and for how long.

Having been welfare recipients since almost my earliest memory, my family knows better than most how precarious welfare is to rely on, and how unhealthy dependency on it is. The prospects of homelessness and hunger are terrifying, especially when thinking of your children. If a government is in control of your rent and your bread, you are at serious risk of being enslaved by it. A great many conservatives will tell you that this is why a majority of low-income and people of color vote democrat; they even call it "welfare slavery." Of course private charity can be precarious too, can foster unhealthy dependency too. And contrary to conservative protestations, private charity has never in recorded history been adequate on a widespread scale, which is why we have a social safety net in the first place. But given how well-versed liberals are in critiquing the mechanisms of power, is it really so hard to understand that government welfare is a twice-over exercise of alarming force? Is it really so hard to understand why conservatives who rely on it for survival would still vote to abolish it, not out of ignorance or foolishness but as a matter of principle? Is that not exactly what liberals urge us to do by enacting policies that they argue are necessary to abolish systemic racism, sexism, etc.? Is it not more worthy of respect than ridicule? Alfred P. Doolittle was wrong, you see: you are never too poor to afford moral principles.

Ironically, liberal bewilderment at low- and middle-income conservatives "voting against their interests" also makes it hard for conservatives to take liberals seriously when they talk about "the Patriarchy." What is more patriarchal than the assumption that conservative voters do not really know what is good for them? What is more patriarchal than liberal policies which aim to expand dependence on government to provide for basic necessities, rather than affirming that responsibility to provide food, shelter, and health care belongs with individuals, families, and communities? How can it be morally and logically consistent to uphold the right of self-determination (which liberals seem to hold above almost all others) while denying that huge swaths of Americans are capable of exercising it responsibly on their own behalf?

Well, we liberals and "kind of liberals" would answer, it's also pretty hard to exercise self-determination when you're chronically sick and can't get health care; or when you don't have access to a shower and clean clothes and a car so that you can get and keep a job; or when you have to choose between being able to feed yourself and your kids or getting out of an abusive marriage. Expanding the social safety net isn't about expanding dependence on but about expanding access to welfare, with the goal of helping people get back on their feet as quickly as possible, which we assume is what everyone involved wants.

Except it isn't necessarily what everyone wants--and I don't mean the debunked and extremely demeaning conservative myth of welfare queens and the undeserving poor. I mean the principle which both liberals and conservatives believe in: that people with power want to hold onto it. And if you put the power to help people increasingly in the hands of government, it's not really in government's interests for people to stop needing their help. There's a lot more power in giving than in receiving.

Conservatives, for their part, keep voting in ways that put us all ever more at the mercy of the ultra-rich, who are no less likely to do everything in their already terrifyingly considerable power to hold onto it, who are not answerable to the electorate, and who keep on amassing to themselves a greater and greater share of our nation's wealth, which is our only means of "voting" against them by refusing to buy what they're selling. But since most of their wealth now is self-generating via financial market manipulation, and since government demonstrated after the crash of 2008 that it has no interest in curbing their power to continue manipulating said markets, we're all basically screwed anyway, and that, dear readers, is another thing that conservatives and liberals basically agree about. Alas, it's also one of the many things we seem incapable of agreeing about how to solve.

I've offered a handful of examples of liberals and conservatives arguing from principles (some of them the very same principles) to reach very different conclusions, both of which are (sometimes, sometimes not) based on facts as well as moral reasoning. I assure you, I could offer more, but a thorough enumeration isn't my goal. My goal was to prove to myself, if not to the few people who occasionally read my blog, that it really is possible to find common ground between liberals and conservatives, on principles if not on policies. That ground is where I try to live.

I don't offer any solutions. Perhaps I ought to try, but I don't know what they are, and right now I'm too tired from having to defend my moral principles and my political choices from every direction. A lot of people seem to think that being moderate (like voting third-party) is a cop out, the most morally inconsistent position of all. Maybe sometimes it is. But it's also really hard. It's lonely. At least in the trenches you have lots of comrades to guard your back. It's pretty exposed out here in no-man's-land, and this war doesn't seem close to a cease-fire anytime soon.

So I'll just end this post with a meme that's been making the rounds recently among both my liberal and my conservative social networks. I don't know where the image came from; I wasn't able to track it to its source, but if anyone can point me to it, I'd love to give proper credit.

The World Doesn't End This Week

Yesterday, we spent some time in each of my classes talking about voting rights in Idaho. My students were surprised and happy to learn that they can register to vote at the polls on the day of the election in Idaho.

Today, one of my students mentioned that she wanted to vote, but was nervous to go to the polls alone because she's never voted before. In fact for most of my students, this is the first time they have been eligible to vote--what an initiation! Although I voted early, weeks ago, I offered to go to the polls at 5 PM with this student, if she wanted moral support; she said she might. Then I extended the offer to any of my students. I offered to give them a ride, or to meet them there tonight.

When I arrived as the sun was going down and the temperature was dropping, I saw a line stretching out of city hall, down the sidewalk, and around the corner. It was growing by the minute as more young people arrived, having finished with classes and work for the day, eager to participate, many for the first time, in this great experiment called democracy.

My nervous student wasn't there; I hope she found another friend to go with her. I did see a few of my other students, and we waved at each other and chatted cheerfully for a few minutes as they waited patiently in line. One of my students told me she wasn't too nervous about the election, but mostly excited. She was happy to be exercising her civil rights and responsibilities. As we chatted, I overheard another student, not one of mine, say to his friends that even though he knows his vote won't make a difference here because Idaho's electoral votes are going to go to Trump anyway, there was no way he was going to miss the chance to participate in this election. He believes his vote matters, even if it doesn't ultimately change the outcome. Everywhere I looked, I saw the same passionate hope, and I felt so proud.

I see approximately eleventy-dozen headlines a year for articles about how Millennials are disengaged, ignorant, lazy, entitled, selfish, irresponsible, losers. It's infuriating, because as a college professor I work with Millennials every day. I have taught nearly a thousand students at four universities, in four different states. The young people I saw waiting in line to vote tonight are not exceptional, except to the degree that their entire generation is. They are enthusiastic. They are engaged. They are resilient. They are compassionate. They work hard, many working 20 or more hours per week while maintaining full-time enrollment and still having to take on debt to pay for their education. Some of them have been military veterans; others are preparing to serve in the armed forces. They are, on the whole, pragmatic yet still hopeful, even in the face of obstacles that would crush some previous generations.

That is why I am confident that regardless of the outcome of this election, this week is not the beginning of the end of the world or this country. We can keep on screwing up America for the next four years, even the next eight, and as long as we don't actually manage to burn it to the ground, America will eventually be OK. The future is, ultimately, in the hands of these Millennials, and that's a great thing.

UPDATE, written at about 2am. Shared on Facebook, want to share it here too.

I managed to tear myself away from poll-watching for a few hours, but had to check one more time before trying again to sleep. All evening I have been praying for grace. Grace in my heart, to not give in to anger and to have compassion for my political adversaries, some of whom I love as family. Grace for this nation, that we may survive the outcome of this election and recommit ourselves to liberty and justice for all. Grace for a world engulfed in uncertainty, violence, and oppression, but searching for light and mercy, that God's light and mercy will shine brighter than the darkness through each of us.

America, I'm not breaking up with you, but I'm really terribly disappointed, not just in your choices tonight but in the past 16 months. We have to do better.

To all my friends who feel unsafe and alienated tonight because of the policies Trump has proposed, I love you. You are not alone and all is not lost. I will stand up for you, for liberty, and for justice.

To all my friends who voted 3rd party: this election was insanely close, and a lot of people are going to blame you for the outcome, and maybe you will second-guess yourselves, but I don't. You faced a difficult choice and followed your conscience. I wish the race had gone differently. I wish McMullin had won Utah. I wish your wish for real change had worked. Keep fighting for what you believe. We need idealists as well as pragmatists.

To all my friends who voted for Trump: I'm upset, but I'm not going to blame you. I am going to call on you now to be better than your candidate. You say you voted not for racism, misogyny, fearmongering, ableism, and authoritarianism, but rather for SCOTUS judges who will uphold the constitution, to protect religious freedom, to increase economic security, and to protect us from extremism. Now you must prove that you really believe it by pressing congress to prevent your guy from carrying out his worst campaign promises.

To the rest of the free world, on behalf of my country, I'm sorry. We let you down. I hope there are enough of us sickened by this election that we will do better next time. I believe there will be a next time.

Now the words of St. Francis' prayer comes to mind: Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there is darkness, light. Where there is sadness, joy! Oh divine Master, grant that I may not seek to be consoled but to console; to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive, and it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen.

National Day on Writing

My photo of an ASU student. CC-BY 2.0

The National Council of Teachers of English created the National Day on Writing, "on the premise that writing is critical to literacy but needs greater attention and celebration." NDOW is celebrated yearly, on October 20th, and while I was serving as an assistant director of ASU Writing Programs, I had the privilege of organizing last year's celebration on the Tempe campus. Along with several colleagues, we planned to have members of our campus community share their responses to #WhyIWrite both on social media and on colorful origami squares. Over 200 people created squares for our quilts on October 20, 2015.

Photo by Bruce Matsunaga for ASU Department of English. CC-BY 2.0

The day's activities were cut short by rain, and we had to wait for the paper to dry out before our project's next phase. On October 31st, as Professors Shirley Rose and Maureen Daly Goggin chaired the annual Feminisms and Rhetorics conference on our campus, we began assembling these origami squares into "paper quilts," which we put on display near our Writing Programs offices.

My photo. CC-BY 2.0

As I sorted through these squares, selecting which ones to place in each quilt, I was profoundly moved again and again by the variety, thoughtfulness, and intimacy of responses. Many students wrote about using writing to learn, or to satisfy teacher expectations. But many more participants wrote about writing for self-expression, keeping in touch with loved ones, and preserving stories and traditions.

When I invited one university employee to share a reason why he writes, he regretfully told me that he doesn't really write--he is an accountant and only writes expense reports for his job. Well, that is writing! I told him. That kind of writing, which often doesn't get recognized as writing, is just as important as the kinds of writing we more readily recognize. I was grateful that he chose to make a square for our quilt.

Photo by Bruce Matsunaga for ASU Department of English. CC-BY 2.0

I was surprised by how many participants shared that writing helps them maintain their mental health. Sometimes, students wrote about how they use writing to create a better future for themselves and for others. A student who wrote "I write because 62 million girls don't have that chance" provided a sobering reminder that writing is a gift and a privilege not shared by everyone. That is why I am so proud to participate in the National Day on Writing. Through this celebration, we bring visibility to the importance of literacy and writing for everyone, regardless of their background, current circumstances, or plans for the future.

This cause is close to my heart. I invite you to celebrate National Day on Writing with me by sharing your responses to the theme of #WhyIWrite in the comments below and all over social media today.

Photo by Bruce Matsunaga for ASU Department of English. CC-BY 2.0 

My photo of Susan. Do not share without permission.

Not Live Blogging General Conference

Image: "Salt Lake Temple in Autumn" by Sascha Wenninger, (CC BY-SA 2.0)

I didn't live blog the Women's Session of conference last weekend, because I was watching it at my sister-in-law's stake center, along with my two other sisters-in-law and all my nieces but the youngest. It was a precious experience.

I fully intended to live blog my way though this conference weekend, as I have for the past few years. But my efforts to do so have been frustrated. I'm in the process of buying a house in Rexburg, and just renting a room meanwhile. Most of my stuff, including my desktop PC, is still in storage. And it turns out I can't use YouTube to cast a live stream from either my phone or my laptop to my TV. Thus, in order to watch conference on my TV, I had to plug my laptop in via an HDMI cable, which means I couldn't use it to type. So I had to choose between watching conference and not blogging, or listening to conference and blogging. After wasting too much of the Saturday morning session and the hours between it and the afternoon session struggling to get my tech to work the way I want it to, I reluctantly decided it's better to watch conference than to live blog it.

Not being able to blog during conference led me to ponder on the value of having done so. Blogging has been my way of note-taking. It's both easier for me than hand-writing notes, and also more communal. I love being able to share my thoughts on conference with the handful of folks who read my blog. Thinking about those people, and not just myself, altered the way I paid attention to conference. I don't know that the alteration was better, though it certainly wasn't worse. I have found it refreshing, though. And I've also really enjoyed the conversations that occasionally arise either in the comments here on my blog, or else on Facebook and elsewhere that I publish the blog.

This weekend I've been having a lot of fibromyalgia-related pain in my hands, possibly due to the rapid and frequent changes in the weather recently. Gripping a pen for long enough to take notes was decidedly unpleasant. So I didn't take any notes during conference sessions, and that made it harder for me to stay awake and attentive. I ended up doing some cleaning yesterday, and practiced tying a new bow-tie this morning (fortunately I made a passable bow by the time my hands hurt too much to continue). I'm doubly grateful for conference talk summaries, as well as the ability to watch and read conference talks at a later time, because I definitely don't remember any of the talks as well as I usually do.

Here, though, are some of the things that do stand out in my memory:

President Uchtdorf's "Fourth Floor, Last Door" talk during the Women's Session last weekend was wonderful. I appreciate his urging of us to press forward in following our spiritual promptings and gospel callings, even to the "fourth floor, last door." I guessed who the young woman was behind that last door, who pleaded with her mother to let the missionaries share their message, before he revealed that it was his beloved wife Harriet Uchtdorf. I did not learn until later that evening that one of the elders who came to her door to share the gospel is my great-uncle, Richard Kowallis.

President Uchtdorf's Saturday morning message also resonated with me. It was a great reminder of the plan of salvation, which is truly a plan of happiness. In that vein, too, was President Nelson's talk on joy and spiritual survival. I was glad that President Nelson taught plainly that we can have joy even in the midst of great hardship and suffering, without once suggesting that those who suffer from depression and anxiety are in any sense lacking in faith or righteousness. Joy is really a gift.

Elder Cook's talk in the Saturday afternoon session was direct, uncompromising, but also uplifting. I appreciated his stern yet loving reminder of the many different kinds of stumbling blocks we may encounter on our spiritual journey. I will certainly return to his message to ponder which stumbling blocks I am most prone to stubbing my toes on.

I confess that by the time Elder Christofferson stood at the podium, I had lost my battle with drowsiness. From the summary, though, I think I must place this one high on my list of talks to listen to soon (and Elder Yamashita's from this session as well). It is vital that we understand the nature of God's love, and I think Elder Christofferson is right that the adjective "unconditional" can be misleading. God's love is infinite, everlasting, and perfect. It is never in short supply, and will always be far more than sufficient for our needs. But we cannot abide in it unless we choose to do so, and in that sense (and only that sense) it is conditionally available to us.

Sister Reeves gave a great discourse on the power of repentance in the Sunday morning session, and I'll have to revisit that one too, because most of my thoughts on it were quickly diverted by Elder Ballard's talk, in which he spoke to those members of the church who are struggling with doubts. Quoting the apostle Peter, Elder Ballard asked, "to whom shall [you] go?" Now, when he said that, I stiffened in alarm--not so much for myself (though I've wrestled with many a troubling bit of doctrine or history) but for my friends whose faith crises or faith transitions have been acute and exacerbated by accusatory rhetoric from members of their own congregations and yes, not infrequently also by conference talks which could have been formulated with greater care. To my delighted surprise, Elder Ballard went on to specifically call out such lack of support from the membership to those whose journey along the path of discipleship has been arrested for one reason or another. It seems to me that he and many of his fellow general authorities have been doing something to listen to those members of the church who are struggling--I mean really listen to them! And to respond to their concerns more positively. In my experience, few of those I know in that situation are there because of unrighteousness or rebelliousness. They do not need admonition but nurture in truth and love--and patience! They need to have patience with human leaders and members, with ambiguous doctrine and troublesome history. And they need to receive patience from those who do not understand why they are troubled by things that so many members don't give a second thought to. Elder Robbins' talk built on a similar principle.

I loved Bishop Davies' and President Eyring's sermons on the joys of worship and Sabbath observance. Basically the whole Sunday morning session was full of Win.

I had to laugh when Elder Bednar made his list first thing in the Sunday afternoon session. I wanted to jump online and ask somebody to check if he's ever given a talk as a GA (or for that matter, when he was president of Ricks/BYU-I) that didn't include a list. I guess in that instance it was a good thing that I didn't have ready access to social media! It was, of course, a great talk on coming to know the Lord.

Then there's Elder Schmutz's talk. I believe this will go down in the annals of conference as one of the great ones, along side most of Elder Holland's sermons. I think it might be my favorite of this conference (though I still need to go back and watch/read the ones I missed due to tech or sleepiness problems). Elder Schmutz taught that while suffering is an unavoidable part of mortality, there is nothing inherently ennobling or sanctifying about it. Rather, suffering becomes ennobling and sanctifying when we consecrate our sorrows to Christ. Then, through the atonement, our suffering becomes transformative, and we can receive comfort and a greater measure of compassion, even in the midst of our afflictions. It really bothers me when people glorify suffering for its own sake. I have seen, in my own life and in the lives of those I know, that suffering can as easily be demeaning and destructive as it can be ennobling and sanctifying. It really is compassion--the pure love of Christ--that makes the difference.

By the time the next General Conference rolls around in April, I should be settled into a new home of my own, with plenty of space for my meager stuff, plus shenanigans. Today a friend on Facebook posted a photo of her and her daughter inside a "Conference fort." I don't have any kids as an excuse to build a Conference fort, but I think I'm just going to do it anyway. Because awesomeness is its own excuse.

Here We Have Idaho

At the beginning of August, I moved back to Rexburg, in the Snake River Valley of Idaho, the land of my maternal roots. My family moved from the Salt Lake area to Idaho Falls when I was 16; I stayed here in southeast Idaho until I was 28, when I moved to Pullman, Washington to begin graduate study. From there I moved first to Saint George, Utah, and then to Mesa, Arizona for a PhD at Arizona State. If all goes as planned, I will soon buy a home here in Rexburg, effectively planting myself for the long term.

Photo: Idaho border signage. CC BY-SA 2.0

I loved living in the Phoenix metro area. I loved all the wonderful friends I made there, the amazing range of culinary options at both restaurants and grocery stores, the plentiful opportunities to enjoy the visual and performing arts, and the great roads (even with the not-so-great drivers). But I am really enjoying the beautiful clear skies (especially at night when I can see so many more stars), the cooler weather, the open fields and greener hills, and the total lack of anything that can reasonably be called traffic (local opinions notwithstanding). A friend recently asked me how big Rexburg is, so I did a bit of research and found the results rather amusing.

• The state of Idaho is home to 1.6 million people; that's about half as many people as live in the Phoenix Metro area, where I just moved from. 
• Rexburg has a population of roughly 30,000 people. This is about 20,000 fewer people than the student population of Arizona State University's Tempe campus, where I just spent the last five years as a student and faculty member. 
• Idaho Falls, where I spent my teens and early adulthood, is about the same size as ASU Tempe. 
• In the Winter 2015 semester (what would be called Spring semester at other schools), BYU-Idaho had a total on-campus enrollment of nearly 17,000 students--for comparison, my former employer, ASU Writing Programs, served over 11,000 students in Fall 2014. 
• Bonus climate comparison: The hottest day on record in Rexburg was 102 degrees, in June 1988. That's considered pleasant spring weather in Mesa, where 120+ degree temperatures are not uncommon throughout the summer, and summer nights rarely dip below 80--which is a normal high temperature for Rexburg summers. Winters are another story. Come January or February, I will probably have to endure more than one -20 day. 

Although I will miss the rich cultural affordances of living in a major metro area, I am still a small-town girl, and I relish the thought of teaching at a smaller university. Although I will miss Arizona's mild winters, I am enjoying being able to spend summer afternoons outside again. Above all, I'm enjoying being closer to my family.

Photo: Me with several nieces and nephews at Pineview Reservoir last week, taken by Jared Robinson.
Please do not use without permission.

Review: Ghostbusters (2016) and Ghostbusters (1984)

I went to see Ghostbusters (2016) on opening weekend, mostly because it's the first movie of the summer that I was really excited about this year, but also partly to spite certain factions of the internet who have tried to pre-emptively tank the movie by spiking reviews without even having seen the movie.

I was too young to see the original Ghostbusters (1984) when it first came out in theaters, but I did watch it and Ghostbusters II (1989) around the time the latter was released, and those two films (plus the cartoons) sparked a significant interest in the paranormal among my circle of friends for a time. We got up to some silly stuff, and to this day I'm not entirely sure how much of it we believed and how much we knew was just pretend--it's funny how the childhood imagination works that way.

My point is that Ghostbusters was a big part of my childhood. I'm really fond of this franchise; it's partly why I was so excited (and a little bit nervous) for the reboot. And it's a big part of why I was so pleased with the 2016 film. It was just really fun. I deliberately did not rewatch the original film before going to see the new one. But in the past few days, I decided I'd like to see how the 1984 film, which I hadn't seen in several years, stacks up to the new one, so tonight I popped in my old Ghostbusters DVD and wrote up a review.

Image: Ghostbusters logo stencilled on a car door.

CC0 Public domain. Free for public use. No attribution required.

To start with, here's the short review I posted on Facebook the night I saw Ghostbusters (2016): 

I really liked it! It hit all the right notes, and though the tune was familiar, it's an old favorite. I felt like it did a great job of winking at the original films without feeling beholden to them. The cameos were marvelous. The main characters were likable and at times lovable. The new gadgets were awesome. 

There were things about Ghostbusters (2016) that I did not like, but they were minor: some crude humor, Leslie Jones's character is still pretty much a token.[1] These minor criticisms are pretty much the same ones I have about the originals (though in the case of Jones's character, the fact that more than 30 years have passed make this criticism significantly less forgivable, and I really hope they fix this for the sequel).

Wondering if you should go see it? Here's my advice:

• If you liked the original Ghostbusters and are not opposed to a remake on principle, you will very probably like this movie.

• If you like sci-fi/action/comedy movies, you will very probably like this movie.

• If you like summer blockbuster movies, you will probably like this movie.

• If you are an academic, you will like at least parts of this movie, if not the whole thing.

• If you are a butthurt dudebro, you are the villain of the story, both in real life and in the narrative, and you will definitely not like this movie.

• If you like poetic justice served meta, with a dash of ectoplasm, you will DEFINITELY like this movie.

Now that I've rewatched the 1984 film here's my comparative review:

Ghostbusters (1984) is still a good movie. The special effects have held up well, it's got some great sight gags and set pieces, and the character actors all do a stand-up job. The soundtrack is awesome. It's still fun to watch!

But you know what? With the exception of that soundtrack, Ghostbusters (2016) is a better film. I would even say a much better film. The comedy is better. The science is better. The action is better. The characterization is better. I'm not saying the reboot is a great movie. Just that it's a good movie, and a better one than the original.

Humor is highly contextual, so it's possible that some of the jokes from 1984 have just dated poorly. The 2016 reboot does a great job of poking fun of a lot of contemporary issues; I laughed most of the way through the movie. I was a little kid when I first saw the original films, and I'm sure a lot of their contemporary humor flew over my head even at the time. Slapstick humor is more ageless, and both the original and the reboot make good use of it. Slimer and ectoplasm, pratfalls, "scares" that are not especially scary--I laughed harder at these jokes in the reboot, but it cashes in on callbacks to the original, so it's not a fair comparison. We'll call it a draw. Jokes that rely on social faux pas have never been my preferred flavor of comedy, but I recognize their role within the genre. In the 1984 film, that kind of social humor routinely punches down. In the 2016 film, the punches are aimed upward, or at least on a level, which is not only funnier but also more responsible.

Not at all surprisingly, the 2016 film's special effects and battles are more exciting. Again, I'm willing to charitably attribute this in part to technical advances over the past 30 years. But only in part. Sometimes, bigger effects and more extensively choreographed fights come at the expense of character and plot; in the reboot, the opposite occurs. The fancy new gadgets and more elaborate battles reveal aspects of the characters and advance the plot.

I also found the new Ghostbusters more personally relatable, possibly because the main characters are women and I'm a woman, but I think there's more to it than that. First of all, all four of the 2016 leads are much better developed than those in the 1984 film, which mostly focuses on Venkman, who is actually a deeply repugnant character (more on that in a minute). All the 2016 leads are given backstories and character arcs. The amount of time spent on each of them is also more equal. Ghostbusters (2016) is truly a buddy movie.

More so than because of my gender, I believe I found the new team relatable (and the old team comparatively unrelatable) because I am now an academic myself. I aspired to academia from a very young age, but I had only the vaguest notion what it was like--one friend's dad was a professor of archaeology, another was a rocket scientist, but my most vivid notions still came from the media. Both the 1984 and the 2016 teams are made up of three academics and one everyman character. But with the exception of Egon and Stanz's characters, I don't recognize my professional world at all in the 1984 film. The 2016 film's depiction of academia and academics had me and my fellow academic friends in stitches. It was absolutely on point.

I admit that "relatability" is highly subjective, and I don't pretend to be unbiased. But even if the 2016 film's increased relatability is at least in part because I share a gender with the leads, that's a really good argument for more films with primarily-women casts. I lived 37 years enjoying hundreds of SF/action/comedy movies starring men. I've identified with male heroes in the movies and TV shows I watch and the books I read for 37 years--much more so, often, than I did with the women in those same stories (who typically didn't do much and were most often written by men, I must add). And it's a real shame that I had so few opportunities to identify so strongly with women heroes in the genres I love best. It's perhaps an even bigger shame that men of my generation had so few opportunities to identify at all with women characters. 

As much as I still love my male-led genre classics, the 2016 Ghostbusters was special for me because I didn't have to put as much effort into identifying with the heroes. Now, I think making an effort to identify with people who are different than you is really important, but so is seeing yourself reflected in your heroes. I want the rising generation of girls and boys to grow up with plenty of opportunities to identify with and admire both men and women heroes.[2] I don't want the box office to be dominated by female-led films the way it has historically been dominated by male-led films (though I'm totally up for more gender-flipped remakes; it's a really interesting creative exercise and frankly, shaking things up creatively in a major way is pretty much the only good reason to do a remake). I would like something much nearer to parity. Contrary to the popular narrative, women have always been a large and essential part of SF fandom. There is an audience for women-led genre films like this, and Hollywood has begun to realize it. The butthurt dudebros are going to lose the culture war, but only because they can't abide sharing any toys at all. (If you are a guy who is not opposed to seeing more women leads and women in general in your media, you are not a butthurt dudebro, and you have nothing to worry about.)

The question of relatability isn't simply one of gender or professional identity. As I wrote before, Peter Venkman is a surprisingly repugnant and unredeemed character for a heroic lead in an '80s film (antiheroes are more common nowadays). In contrast, all of the 2016 reboot's leads are likable as well as heroic. It wouldn't be fair to compare Venkman to four awesome women, and I don't have time to line up the other three counterparts, so let's stick with one whose narrative arc is most similar to Venkman's (though it is, as you'll see, a very superficial similarity): Dr. Erin Gilbert.[3]

SPOILERS AHEAD.

Dr. Erin Gilbert (Kristin Wiig):

• Appears to be a brilliant and conscientious physicist
• Is first seen nervously preparing to give a lecture; the equations on her white board are apparently legit awesome science (plus some nifty Easter eggs)
• Craves acceptance and prestige from those she perceives as her peers (this gets her into trouble)
• Through backstory we learn that she set aside her interest in studying the paranormal in order to be seen as credible in the eyes of her colleagues; in doing so, abandoned a research partner and childhood friend (but believed that she was doing Abby no professional harm)
• Is denied tenure and fired for having written a book on the paranormal prior to her career in academia (likewise, their unconventional research subject causes Abby Yates and Jillian Holtzmann to lose their institutional support, such as it was)
• When she realizes the pain she caused her friend, Erin is remorseful and works to repair the relationship, both personally and professionally
• Awkwardly tries to hit on Kevin the airheaded blonde secretary; is totally ignored by him, still likes and looks out for him. Though she continues to admire his appearance (something he seems accustomed to and comfortable with), she does not press her advances
• With one notable lapse back into her selfish need for personal validation[4], works together with Abby, Erin, and Patty in a true partnership to do Awesome Paranormal Science and save the city from ghosts
• As a reward for saving the city, Dr. Gilbert and her team ask for and get a firehouse and other resources to continue their work of doing awesome science and protecting the city. That's it. There's no romance. No fame. Just awesome women supporting each other and doing awesome chaotic-good science because awesomeness is its own reward

Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray):

• Has two PhDs, in psychology and parapsychology
• Is first seen unethically tampering with his own research project, deliberately causing pain and humiliation to a male research subject and ignoring the very results he is supposedly looking for, in order to hit on a hot blonde female research subject
• Peppers his colleagues (and pretty much everyone else he doesn't want to bang) with sarcasm and put-downs
• Gaslights a woman librarian about having seen a ghost (sees the ghost himself shortly thereafter and flips out)[4]
• Loses his team's funding and evicted from their research lab not because of their unconventional research subject but because Venkman is legitimately a terrible researcher who until now doesn't even believe in his own work. He deserves to be fired, and he takes his colleagues (who apparently do care about and are good at research) down with him
• Immediately tries to drum up the team's morale by talking about how they don't need academic support anymore because they can provide a very expensive service that will soon be in high demand. (Throughout the film he is consistently motivated by self-interest)
• Creepily hits on a client, and persists in his pursuit of her even after having been rebuffed multiple times and even though he acknowledges that his behavior is creepy[5]
• Continues to be an arrogant a-hole throughout the entire film. His knee-jerk antagonism of an EPA agent who was actually doing his job (and whose own contempt is at least partly a reaction to Venkman's bad behavior) leads to the shutdown of the team's ghost containment unit, which puts the entire city in Armageddon-level danger. Projects responsibility for this onto the EPA guy; is never called out on it in any way
• Is portrayed as the hero of the film; the others are basically his vastly more competent sidekicks
• As a reward for saving the city, gets fame, glory, and the girl

If "relatability" is an important part of what makes a movie enjoyable, then I guess I can understand why butthurt dudebros cling to the original Ghostbusters with such extreme fervor: like them, Venkman is an entitled a-hole loser. And for this, he gets everything they fantasize about--a fantasy the realization of which is becoming increasingly scarce both in the media and in real life (thank goodness)! For me, and for a lot of guys I know, Venkman was always alienating; I identified with Egon, and I'm happy to say I still identify with Egon because Egon is awesome. But Erin Gilbert, Abby Yates, Jillian Holtzmann, and Patty Tolan are all my kind of heroes--heroes I can not only relate to but also genuinely admire, even with their faults.

The aforementioned butthurt dudebros were afraid that the reboot would ruin their memories of a beloved film from their childhoods. Perhaps they were right to fear that. If Ghostbusters (2016) had been an inferior film, Ghostbusters (1984) would have remained untarnished. By not only being a better movie on its own merits, but also one which both affectionately and critically talks back to its predecessor, Ghostbusters (2016) has indeed diminished my enjoyment of the original. I didn't expect that, but in retrospect, I think it's a good thing.

[1] Jones' acting and comedic timing were great; she's often the best part of any scene she's in. What I mean by saying that her character was a "token" is that she is the only POC among the main cast--and there are precious few POC in the film at all. Seriously, scroll through the full cast list on IMDB. SO MANY white faces. And this is NYC! Seriously! I will say that although both Patty in the 2016 film and Winston in the 1984 original were the "blue-collar" members of team, Patty at least had a greatly expanded role, and she wasn't just world-wise. She had studied the weird and creepy history of the city in her spare time, and her self-education contributed vitally to the team's success. Though she lacks their credentials, Patty is Erin, Abby, and Jillian's intellectual peer.

[2] Shout-out here to Rey from Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I wish she were there for 7-year-old me; I'm proud she's there for my nieces and nephews, who all love her and identify with her.

[3] A note on names: whether we refer to someone by their first or last name indicates a degree of familiarity or formality. First name typically is less formal and more familiar. Last name is more formal and less familiar. The tendency to use only last names in professional contexts has also faded over time; it's much more common now to call colleagues by their first names even in professional contexts and especially when those colleagues are equals and friends. Although they're both doctors, in his films Peter Venkman is typically called by his last name, and in her film, Erin Gilbert is most often called by her first name (as far as I can recall anyway). But I would argue that this isn't a gendered slight; it's actually a reflection of how relationships are constructed within the films. I take the liberty of following the films' own name-use conventions.

[4] In a key bit of backstory from the 2016 film, we learn that Erin was gaslighted about her own paranormal experiences as a child. This is definitely not a narrative accident. It's subtly lampshaded by Bill Murray's cameo as a paranormal debunker who goads Erin into releasing a trapped ghost. This leads directly to his character falling out a window and probably dying (it's not explicitly shown). What a beautiful piece of intertextual comeuppance!

[5] To his credit, Venkman refrains--not without a struggle--from taking advantage of Dana while she's possessed by Gozer and extra-highly sexualized. But it's worth noting that later Gozer-Dana does get it on with her extremely dweebish (and likewise then-possessed) neighbor, whose advances she has previously rebuffed. And Venkman does still win her in the end. The sexual politics here are truly appalling, though not extraordinary for the time.

Live Blogging General Conference: April 2016

Image Credit: "Salt Lake Temple Square Flower" by Jeff. Flickr. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
 

Hello again! As has been my tradition for the past few years, I will be live blogging General Conference, the twice-annual worldwide gathering of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, when Mormons (and friends) around the world gather in our homes and church buildings and in Salt Lake City, to hear the general authorities and officers of the church speak. The first session is held the week before the remaining five sessions, and is a special session for the women of the church, ages eight and up. There is a Priesthood session for the men of the church on Saturday, April 2. You may watch all sessions of General Conference live (or time-delayed) online at lds.org, the Mormon Channel on YouTube, and on byutv.

This blog records what I hear and think as I listen; it is not intended to be a summary and my views are my own. I highly recommend that you watch or read conference for yourself. Talks can be watched and read at conference.lds.org, and you can also read summaries here.

General Women's Session 

My roommate Abby and I are having a little spaz-out during the musical number because the choir is so beautifully diverse, and also some of them have MAGENTA HAIR! And then Abby recognized one of her friends singing in the choir. Isn't it beautiful!

Cheryl A Esplin

Sister Esplin reminds us that service is a portal, or catalyst for empathy and love. Some kinds of service are very small and simple, and others require careful reflection, planning, and sometimes great effort. But whether small or great, acts of service born of compassion are always worthwhile.

Neill F. Marriot
"Love means making space for someone else in your life." One of the things I love about Sister Marriott's talk is how many women leaders of the church she is quoting--and this is, I am certain, a deliberate rhetorical choice, as was quoting a mention of Heavenly Mother. I love how Sister Marriott is talking about how we, in our imperfect ways, use our God-given gifts and inclinations to love and serve others. She is talking about a broad view of what motherhood means, while also celebrating traditional motherhood. "We must anchor ourselves to eternal principles, and testify of them, no matter what the world's response." And the examples she chooses are examples of testimony given in love and kindness, and which are attentive to the differences of experience and capability of those we seek to serve, nurture, and teach.

OK, I'm apparently going to tear up during every single video presentation during this session--all of them are about refugees.

Linda K. Burton
The General Relief Society, Young Women's and Primary presidencies have launched a new refugee relief effort. I'll post a link to this once it's available. She reminds me that as important as it is to love and serve our neighbors in faraway places, it is equally important to serve our neighbors next door.

The talks so far have reminded me, too, that the women who are among the general officers of the church are in many cases leading the way in boldly teaching and serving within the church and throughout the world.

How beautiful is this choir? It's just so beautiful. I love it.

Henry B. Eyring
President Eyring always speaks so tender-heartedly. I love what he has said about the women in his life. I'm a bit troubled by his telling us three feelings we have had tonight because of the messages we have heard. It's true (and unsurprising) that tonight I have felt love, the witness of the Holy Spirit, and a desire to go forth and serve as I've listened to the messages given by my church leaders. But past experience has taught me that not everyone who is listening has felt those things, and it feels uncomfortable to me to hear a man--even a man I love and respect and regard as having the gift of prophecy, as I do President Eyring--telling women what we feel. There's a long history of women being told what we feel, or should feel, and that brings a lot of baggage. So I appreciate the intent of this message, but I feel that the way it was expressed was unfortunate. But when he shifted to a witness of the Lord, and to expressing a hope and prayer for what we will feel and what we will do, my spirit shared that witness.

Saturday Morning Session

Henry B. Eyring
The spirit and practice of gathering is essential to the work of the church. At conference time, we gather virtually and in spirit together, and together seek to draw nearer to the Lord by listening to the messages that church leaders have prepared. Feeling the love of the Savior and the joy that accompanies it helps us endure trials of our faith--but what do we do if or when that feeling fades? President Eyring recounts the parable of the sower. We must not only receive, but continue to nourish the seed of faith that was given to us. I think about my roommate Stephanie's efforts in her garden here in Arizona, compared to the gardens I've seen in northern Utah and Idaho. Stephanie has to work much harder than my northern friends so that her garden will flourish. But even my friends who live in more fertile climates must regularly till, and water, and weed, and battle pests in order to receive a harvest. And in my own life it has seemed that sometimes I had good soil and other times I had hard and rocky soil. The great thing about this parable is that our souls, like the soil, can be cultivated. President Eyring also reminds us that the witness we receive during this conference may not be identical to the message that was given, but will be an affirmation of gospel truths that have been testified, and will show us what we need to do to draw closer to the Lord.

Mary R. Durham
Just as people have different "love languages" or "learning styles," not everyone feels the witness of the Holy Spirit in the same way. But we can see many patterns of revelation in the scriptures, which can help us to recognize how the Spirit might speak to us.

Donald L. Hallstrom
Ancient and modern prophets have borne witness that we are the offspring of deity. What does it mean to be a child of heavenly parents? Understanding our true relationship to God is not only necessary to salvation but, when it becomes the core of our identity, provides strength and stability in our mortal lives--other aspects of our identity may change over the years, but this relationship will never change, nor will the love our Father has for us ever cease. Many forces in the world try to make us forget who we really are--and some have never received a witness of their divine heritage. We have so many choices as to how we shape our own identities, and that's wonderful, as long as we never forget our first identity. I am a child of God!

Gary E. Stevenson
He began with a story of a ski trip and mislaid keys that prevented them from accessing and using their comfortable car. The minute he said "keys" I knew we were going to have a talk about the restoration of the priesthood. It's not a perfect analogy, I think, because a church without priesthood keys can still function well, bless the lives of its members, and do much to move the world toward Zion, whereas a car without keys is just a useless hunk of metal, plastic, glass, and upholstery. But it's indeed true that priesthood keys enable critical gospel work that would not be possible without them--the keys of gathering and sealing, for example. And while not all will hold the keys, all may access the power that comes through their use.

Kevin R. Duncan
Forgiveness brings healing to the one who forgives, not just the one who is forgiven. The principle and practice of forgiveness is an opportunity to exercise empathy, and to cultivate love for imperfect people. We are sometimes the victim and sometimes the offender. Forgiving is not excusing, but as we all fall short, we all need compassion and an opportunity to start over. And we all need to practice tolerance, which is an opportunity for learning! To forgive, we need to understand, and to understand, we need to listen to those whose perspectives and experience differ from our own. The atonement isn't just for those who need to repent, but also for those who need to forgive, and God will help us be able to do both.

Steven E. Snow
Our hymnal is a great blessing to our worship. This is certainly true for me--singing with my ward choir, or with a church congregation, is often when I feel the greatest spirit of communion. The hymns teach pure and simple truths. The 1985 edition of the LDS hymnal included what was then a new hymn, "Be Thou Humble." Humility is so important to the flourishing of all worthy and healthy relationships, and something that we seem to need continual reminders of. It's so easy for pride to seep into our hearts, and pride is fundamentally isolating. No amount of righteous living will exempt us from painful trials, but humility can help us to weather them.

Dale G. Renlund
Because of the spiritual distance between ourselves and God, we may come to feel entitled to grace and blessings, and to resent when things seem hard or unfair. But as we draw closer to God, the further we get from such childish notions, as our hearts are filled with gratitude and humility. While I certainly wish that material goods were distributed more equitably, for the good of my spirit I don't want life to be fair--I want something better. The blessings God provides are out of all proportion to what I could ever deserve. It's true that I also want to be free from grief and trials as much as possible. But I understand that enduring these hardships is an unavoidable part of mortality, and that the practice of enduring faithfully makes me stronger.

And now the choir is closing with my favorite hymn that's not in the hymnal: Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing!

Saturday Afternoon Session

Some of the BYU-Idaho students in that choir could be my students this coming Fall! I'm so happy to be returning home to Idaho and to settle down at last. Being a student at BYU-Idaho is great, but being a professor will be even better.

During the sustaining of general authorities and officers of the church, a lone person voiced opposition. This happened during last conference, though there were more voices that time. It surprised some members for whom an opposing voice had not been heard in their lifetimes, but it's not a new phenomenon. The purpose of the sustaining vote is not to decide who will lead the church (it's not an election). Callings to serve in any office in the church, from the highest to the lowest, come by revelation and are extended by established priesthood authority. But as members, our vote is an opportunity to affirm our commitment to support and assist those whom the Lord has called in the work of building Zion. It does not necessarily mean that we always agree with everything they say or do, or that we think they are infallible, but that we recognize their authority and stewardship within the church. I am glad we have the opportunity to offer a sustaining vote--and, yes, also the opportunity to voice opposition. It is important to me to continue to have a chance to officially affirm where I stand, and not something I do lightly or automatically.

Ronald A. Rasband
2 Nephi 31:20 is my family's unofficial mission statement; my mom had it embroidered on a banner and it hangs just inside my parents' front door. I appreciate Elder Rasband's reminder that we cannot "endure to the end" alone, but that we need to support and sustain one another as we press forward together. Eternal life is not a solitary experience either; the associations we cultivate in this life will continue in the next. As Jesus reaches out to us to lift us up and rescue us from sinking beneath the waves of life, so we must also reach out to and lift up our brothers and sisters. I can imagine myself with one hand firmly grasped in the Savior's hand and another reached out to hold fast to those whom I love.

Neil L. Andersen
Family configurations increasingly do not match the pattern extolled by the church; while we will continue to teach toward the ideal, we must increasingly be sensitive to the knowledge that many in our congregations do not experience it themselves. It seems very difficult to me--but essential--to affirm the doctrine of eternal families in a way that is inclusive of and compassionate toward those whose experience doesn't match it. We can take solace in the knowledge that regardless of our mortal family's circumstances, we are all part of a heavenly family. And we can do everything in our power to help our spiritual brothers and sisters feel that they are a part of that family, and a part of ours.

Mervyn B. Arnold
I was touched by Elder Arnold's tenderness as he spoke of going to the rescue of those who are physically or spiritually suffering or in danger.

Jairo Mazzagardi
Many converts have powerful stories of seeking for truth and light that led them eventually to the restored gospel. Indeed, Joseph Smith's account of the first vision is a moving account of the power of spiritual searching. While being born and raised in the church is a precious blessing, I think those of us who were sometimes feel a kind of holy envy, or a longing to have such a powerful conversion experience ourselves. But of course we must all be converted to the gospel, and such conversion must involve earnest searching. Perhaps because I understand the necessity of diligent searching to the conversion process, I do not regard uncertainty or doubt as dangerous to faith but as essential to it. But the purpose of searching is to find, and God promises that those who seek him will find him.

David A. Bednar
Elder Bednar talks about revelation and rebirth almost continually. And he has a very recognizable rhetorical method, which is precise and logical--for instance in this case he constructs an argument (a claim with reasons, or a series of connected propositions leading to a conclusion) about the relationship between key ordinances and the powers of heaven. I appreciate that while the general authorities are unified in purpose and message, their individual methods allow them to speak to a diverse church body, so that listeners have an opportunity to receive teaching in a language they can understand. And his propositions tend to have two parts: the first takes one principle which is well understood and the second part expands it, illuminating a less-well-understood aspect or providing a new insight. For instance, there was his seminal talk on the cleansing and enabling power of the atonement, or part of today's message about the blessing and sanctifying of the emblems of the sacrament.

M. Russell Ballard
Elder Ballard has given many memorable talks, and written an important book about the importance of counseling within our councils within the church. Today he's talking about family councils. As important as the tradition of "family home evenings" is, so are family councils, and they serve different functions. FHE is about sharing a gospel message and enjoying activities together; councils are for planning, solving problems, building and strengthening relationships, and praying with and for one another. Family councils can be formal or informal, and be planned or happen spontaneously. But some family councils should be planned and prepared for on a regular basis. All members of the family should have opportunities to participate in and contribute to family councils, though at times a family council might occur between the whole family, just the parents, the parents and one child, or one parent and one child. Single members might participate in "roommate councils." Counseling with my family has been essential to meeting the challenges of our lives individually and as a family.

The Priesthood Session was broadcast Saturday at 6pm MDT, 5pm Arizona time. However, I am not asked to attend that session and did not watch it live so that I could get some grading and writing done before Sunday.

Sunday Morning Session

Thomas S. Monson

4 new temples: Ecuador, Zimbabwe, Brazil, Peru! 

The gift of free agency is precious, and should be used for righteous purposes. I appreciated that the choir sang "I Will Follow God's Plan for Me" prior to this talk, because the two messages complement each other. The plan of salvation involves crucial decisions that are essential for everyone, and those who have made sacred covenants share eternal goals--yet though the plan of salvation is universal, God's plan for me is individual. Choosing what is right, and right for me, is not always easy to know or to do. But the "easy wrong" is harder in the end.

Bonnie L. Oscarson
Knowing and believing are different things--we may know but not believe. And I think we can believe but not know. If we know and believe, then do we act according to that belief? We claim and believe that families can be sealed for eternity in the temple--do we engage in family history and attend the temple to perform ordinances for our ancestors? We claim and believe that the Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ, and that together with the Bible they contain the fulness of the gospel, but do we diligently study the scriptures? We claim and believe that God stands at the head of this church and leads it. But do we attend our meetings and magnify our callings? Conversion, a change of heart, happens over time as we exercise our faith consistently. The spiritual perils of our day are the same as they have always been--pride, the cares of the world, the fear of men, which are represented in Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life as "the great and spacious building." After we have partaken of the fruit of the gospel, all is not done. We must daily choose faith over doubt.

W. Christopher Waddell
"Sometime's it's just hard for me to think about Jesus!" Sorrow touches everyone from time to time along our mortal journey. Three steps to peace: learn, listen, and walk. A proper understanding of the gospel and its ordinances does not eliminate sorrow, but gives us hope that can overcome that sorrow. While living the gospel brings peace and comfort to our lives, not every wound will be healed in mortality. Bishop Waddell, like Sister Oscarson, speaks about the vision of the Tree of Life, and warns of the dangers of heeding the calls from the great and spacious building. The proper response to the mocking and scorn of those in the great and spacious building is not to debate, but to ignore.

D. Todd Christofferson
We believe in fathers--in the ideal of the man who puts his family first! We teach it and strive to practice it. Fathers and mothers lead the family as equal partners. Men of the church know that the ideal of manhood is to be found not in worldly models of aggression, individualism, and autonomy, but in our Heavenly Father, who loves, provides for, and teaches His children by word and example. Elder Christofferson continues to describe examples of worthy men who not only serve their families but strive to serve their communities. Providing correction and discipline is part of parenthood, but must be exercised in soberness, love, and a desire to help a loved one to self-mastery; anything approaching abuse is wicked. "Loving the mother of his children—and showing that love—are two of the best things a father can do for his children.” There is no shame for those who, despite their best efforts, are unable to provide for their families by their own means. Seeking help from family, from the church, and from the community when circumstances warrant is an act of love and humility. Individual adaptations to the divine pattern for families are necessary. Even God the Father entrusted His own son to a foster father! I love that reminder that even the Holy Family did not actually match the "ideal nuclear family" model! Develop strong relationships, and continue to progress from good, to better, to best.

Quentin L. Cook
There are now 150 operating temples; when all announced temples are completed, there will be 177. This is cause for humble rejoicing. On this day in 1836, the first temple of this dispensation was dedicated in Kirtland, Ohio, and the Lord Jehovah, Moses, Elias, and Elijah appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to restore the keys of this dispensation (see D&C 110). Can you picture yourself in the temple? If not, what do you need to do to get there? The unprecedented availability of temples, and the technology to engage in family history work, are a tremendous blessing and obligation; through temple ordinances for the dead, salvation is available to all God's children throughout all of human history, and this generation is called to be "saviors on mount Zion." Live to be worthy of these blessings and obligations. The temple recommend questions are an opportunity to self-evaluate our spiritual health and progress. Though a certain standard of worthiness is required, imperfections & sins don't disqualify us from temple attendance. And temple attendance can help us overcome them. Earthly distinctions of wealth and status are left behind when we enter the temple, all dressed in white, united by a common desire and engaged in a common work. It would be a great blessing if we could take that spirit of the temple with us as we return to our regular lives.

Dieter F. Uchtdorf
At the end of the Sunday Morning session, after an hour and a half of conference, all the Mormons perk up again as the Silver Fox takes the podium! President Uchtdorf shares his experience of the Desden bombing when he was four years old. A beautiful Lutheran church was destroyed in the bombing, and much later rebuilt, in part using scarred and blackened stones from the original structure. The church stands as a witness that what is damaged and destroyed can be rebuilt. There is no life so shattered that it cannot be rebuilt. The best way to help sinners repent is not to condemn, ridicule, or shame them. Jesus provides the perfect example: he associated, loved, and served those whom his society shunned as sinners and unclean. As the Good Shepherd, he continually seeks after and finds the lost sheep and endeavors to bring them back to the fold. "The sheep is worthy of divine rescue simply because it is loved by the Good Shepherd.... You are his child, and he loves you. He loves his children. Because he loves you, he will find you...and bring you home." But he will force no-one to heaven; we must be willing to be saved. We show our willingness by turning toward him, and receiving baptism. To start with, it's enough merely to desire to believe, to have a spark of hope that God can save you. That is enough for the transformation to begin! Obedience itself does not save us, but by obedience we show our desire to receive God's blessings. He shares a German proverb: "There is nothing good unless you do it." (I love it when he speaks German--I can even understand it sometimes!) "If our faith does not change the way we live, our religion is vain."

Sunday Afternoon Session

Robert D. Hales

"The Holy Ghost honors the principle of agency" and speaks to our minds and hearts about many matters of consequence, but to seek or expect revelation through the Holy Ghost for every decision, no matter how trivial, is to misunderstand the purpose and power of the Holy Spirit. It is not good to be commanded in all things. In addition, we cannot receive revelation for others outside our stewardship. We can err, being deceived by the temptations of the adversary, or misled by heeding our own desires in opposition to the whispering of the Spirit. But if we will humble ourselves, and strive to live worthy, and seek diligently to understand what is right, the Holy Ghost will reveal what is needful for us to know and to do. The windows of heaven are open to all who will look; the word of the Lord may be heard by all who will listen, and when we heed the revelation we receive, we will receive more. The spirit of prophecy is alive in the church, and it is through the Holy Ghost that we receive it.

Gerrit W. Gong
Remembering and forgetting are an everyday part of life; they are also part of eternity. Time, agency, memory help us to learn and grow. When we take the sacrament each week, we covenant to "always remember Him." We can do so first, by having confidence in God's promises. Second, through gratefully acknowledging His hand in our lives. Third, by trusting when the Lord assures us that when we repent, God remembers our sins no more. But he does remember us, and knows us better than we know ourselves. Fourth, by remembering that God will always welcome us home, no matter how far or long we have strayed. Fifth, remembering to do the work we are called to do--to love, teach, and serve one another. Sixth, by remembering him as he remembers us.

Patrick Kearon
There are an estimated 60 million refugees in the world right now--that means roughly 1 in every 122 people on earth! And half of these are children. The need is great. These people have had to abandon homes, possessions, jobs, and leave behind friends and family, in order to preserve their lives. The church is engaged in a great effort to help relieve this enormous need. He reminds us of Sister Burton's call from last weekend to ask ourselves "What if their story were my story?" He asserts: their story is our story. All of us have found refuge in the arms of the Savior. And he reminds us that Jesus himself was a refugee, as his family fled to Egypt when he was a young child. He describes the relief efforts that members of the church throughout Europe are engaged in. This need will remain with us long after the initial shock is over; we must not flag in our efforts to aid those who are in such desperate need. It doesn't matter what our political affiliations are--we ought to be no respecters of person, but serve where the need is great. We should also remember that it isn't wise to run faster than we have strength--we must do what we can, but still provide for the needs of our families. Donating is good, but we should also consider what we can do close to home, to help refugees within or near our own communities. Refugees resettling in host countries have myriad needs, small and great--mentoring with something as simple as going to a grocery store or to school, as well as help learning a new language (and you can learn their language to help with communication too), practicing job interviews, and so on. We hope that refugee status will be only a period, hopefully a short period, in their lives--this experience does not define them, and they have been and will be brilliant contributors to their communities and world. But how we respond does help to define us.

President Uchtdorf, who is conducting, has been weeping. Elder Kearon's message has special resonance for him, because he and his family were refugees during and after WWII.

Dallin H. Oaks
Agency is a favorite topic for Elder Oaks, which is not surprising since in his former professional life he was a judge. Opposition is necessary to the exercise of agency, because the purpose of agency is not merely to have choices, but to have an opportunity to choose God, or anything else. In the council in Heaven, Satan suggested his own plan as a substitute to God's plan. In Satan's plan, all would be saved, without exception or choice. But his reason for suggesting this plan was not love but pride: he wanted God's glory for himself. In God's plan, we have the opportunity to choose for ourselves whether to follow God, but he has provided a way for all who choose it to be saved. Experiencing opposition, in the form of temptation or hardship, is not a reflection on our worthiness. No amount of righteousness exempts us from the necessity of opposition in our lives. It is through opposition that we learn and grow. Opposition sometimes comes from within the church, from those who style themselves "the loyal opposition." While "loyal opposition" may be appropriate within a political body, the administration of the church functions by revelation to those who've been called; it's not that we're expected to blindly follow, because we are promised and expected to seek personal revelation. But we are expected to sustain church leaders and assist in the work of building Zion. Speaking for myself, when I am unsure of direction that church leaders have given, I persevere in the knowledge that I do have, and patiently wait for further light and knowledge on the issue that troubles me.

Kent F. Richards
The temple points us to Christ, and there is real power in its ordinances. I have served as a recorder in the Mesa temple, and can testify of the added blessings, power, and knowledge that come from regular temple service. All that we do in the temple is done in reverence and love, with care and diligence, and we carry that spirit with us back into the world. I hope that no one is intimidated by the prospect of going to the temple and doing temple work. It is simple and beautiful.

Paul V. Johnson
The Savior's resurrection brought total victory over death. When loved ones die, we have hope through the resurrection. Our spirits will be reunited with our perfected, immortal bodies; there is no salvation without resurrection. The Bible and the Book of Mormon testify of the reality of Christ's bodily resurrection, and Joseph Smith and other latter-day prophets and apostles have likewise borne witness that they have seen the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ in the flesh. Because we know the reality of the resurrection, we can have faith that Christ has power to cleanse us from our sins, to heal our spirits, and to work mighty miracles through his servants. The promise of the resurrection brings peace and hope to all those who have lost loved ones.

Jeffrey R. Holland
Yes, I know that we, the members of the church, are loved dearly by our leaders. I have served as a local leader and know that the capacity to love those you are called to serve is difficult to comprehend unless you have experienced it. Though they do not know us each individually, our leaders love us. And how much more does God, who knows us individually and perfectly, love us! The messages of general conference can, for some, feel overwhelming or discouraging. But that is not their purpose or intent--they ought to inspire and uplift, and yes, prompt us to do better. With the help of the Savior, we can improve, and the great thing about the gospel is, we get credit for trying, even if we don't always or completely succeed. If you fall, call out for mercy and help. God will answer. He will lift up, forgive, heal, and strengthen us. We will be blessed for our desire to do good, even as we strive to become good. Remember the first great companion: love God with all our heart, might, mind, and strength. But the first great truth is that God loves us with all His heart, might, mind, and strength--which is infinite and eternal! God will not desert us; it is not his character to do so. God wants to bless us! An abundant and eternal life for each of us is his goal.

AMEN!

And that's it for the next 6 months. I'm so excited to re-read, and re-listen to these conference messages. I feel blessed to have this opportunity to worship and learn with all my brothers and sisters in the church throughout the world.