The Science {and Spirituality} Behind Light

I wrote a blog post a few months back elaborating on the things that I have learned about truth. I came to the realization that, to quote from that blog post, “it is left to each of us to define what truth means at an individual and personal level.” To many, this seems an abstract and conflicting idea. Maybe it is. Part of my personality allows me to be “able to live by glaring contradictions that nonetheless make perfect sense – at least from a purely rational perspective” (this quote was obtained from 16personalities.com, my personal favorite expression of my INTJ personality type).

Allow me to explain what I mean.

On Thursday, February 26^th, 2015, the internet blew up over a controversy concerning this dress.

Is the dress white and gold, or blue and black? The world could not agree. How could one object be so clearly, glaringly contradicting? Celebrities even joined the argument: Taylor Swift sees blue and black, while Anna Kendrick sees white and gold.

So what does it mean? In order to understand what’s happening here, let’s have a quick physics lesson. When we see the color of something, we are not actually seeing what color the thing is – we are actually seeing the only color the thing isn't. For example, if I am looking at a blanket that is red, the blanket is not actually red. In fact, the blanket is all of the colors except for red. The blanket absorbs all of the light wavelengths except for the red ones, which it reflects away from itself. This is why we perceive the color of that blanket as red.

Now, as far as cut-and-dry science is concerned, this is a pretty simple process. But when we involve the brain, things can sometimes grow a little complicated. See, here’s the thing: we actually “see” with our brain, not with our eyes. Usually this works well; but this dress is a perfect example of the exception. “Essentially, your brain normally figures out what color you’re looking at and subtracts any color that might be interfering with whatever wavelengths are illuminating the world, reflecting off whatever you’re looking at… but this image seemed to have hit that sweet spot where it doesn’t work out quite as well. What’s happening here is your visual system is looking at this thing, and you’re trying to discount the chromatic bais of the daylight axis... So people either discount the blue side, in which case they end up seeing white and gold, or discount the gold side, in which they end up with blue and black” (http://hellogiggles.com/dressgate/2#read).

If you are a visual learner, here is another good explanation of what is happening as our brain tries to make sense of the colors in this image: http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit/links/what-color-dress-video-solved-it-science?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fbsmosh

So why do I bring this up? It is fascinating science, for sure. But it also provides an interesting analogy. What happens when I take Taylor Swift and Anna Kendrick and put them both in a room with the picture of this dress? I ask them to tell me what color the dress it. Taylor is going to tell me all day that the dress is blue and black. And Anna is going to tell me that it is clearly white and gold. Taylor and Anna get into an argument about it, neither of them relenting, because they are both sure the dress is the color they are telling me it is – they can see it, after all, with their own two eyes. Right in front of them. It’s there. Visible to everyone. And it’s obviously blue/white/black/gold. So Taylor gets frustrated and says to Anna, “you see white and gold, then prove it”. Anna then retaliates with “you prove that the dress is black and blue”. And neither of them will be able to do it. But to each of them, ultimately, they are telling me the truth. And they cannot prove their perception of the dress to the other. The way they perceive the dress is different from the other, but it is still very much truth to them. Clear as day. And they each have a difficult time comprehending the others’ perception because it is so glaringly obvious to them what color they see.

It’s all about perspective.

To quote from my earlier blog post again, “the irreligious believe that science provides evidence to support the idea that God does not exist. And theists believe that their understanding of religion provides evidence that God does exist. When in reality…neither of them can be proved or disproved, which makes them both equally true.” The religion question is easier to comprehend if we compare it to the dress. To some, the dress is white and gold. Their perception of the dress is more than enough proof for them to accept it as truth. When, in turn, the same happens with those who see the dress as blue and black. Both sides have defined truths relative to themselves, and they are both right. 

Relatively.

Now, in the real (physical) world, the dress really is only one color pattern. It is not a perceived truth. It is an absolute truth. So while it can be perceived more than one way by the general population, and accepted as relative truth by corresponding demographics, there is an absolute truth out there. I have been told that the dress really is blue and black. Now, I have not seen the dress for myself, but I have enough faith in the sources that I have heard it from to accept as reality that absolute truth.

The same thing happens with religion. There is an absolute truth out there. And someone knows about it. Have I had a confirmation of my own to be able to say that I know what is absolute truth in the theism debate? No. I am living in a relative truth. But it is a relative truth based on the testimonies of individuals who have had the absolute truth revealed to them.

Do you see how that works? We can perceive the dress as whatever relative truth we perceive it as, and it is very much real. Very much a truth. But there is an absolute truth available, and someone has seen the dress personally and can attest to its color scheme. Likewise, we can perceive deity as whatever relative truth we perceive it as, but there is an absolute truth available and someone has seen God personally who can attest to His flesh-and-bone existence. And I have put my faith in those testimonies. Just like I have put my faith in the testimonies of those who profess the dress to be a black and blue color scheme, even though I have never seen the dress myself, in person.

Now, since we are talking about color and our perception of the phenomenon in the surrounding world, I wanted to bring up the two extremes really quickly because I think there is a lot of beautiful symbolism in black and white. Black and white are special cases as far as our observance of color in the physical world are concerned.

Black absorbs all of the light waves, reflecting no light waves back for our eyes to pick up and our brain to perceive. This is why everything becomes the color black in the absence of light. But white is the opposite. White reflects all of the colors back out, holding on to nothing. 

Think about that: holding on to nothing.

No wonder white is the color of purity.

It makes sense that white provides such a powerfully symbolic representation in religion. It is fitting, isn't it, that in the absence of Light (Jesus Christ) everything becomes dark (ominous)? It is fitting, isn't it, that we all wear white in the temple of the Lord? Jesus Christ has provided a way for us to pure again. But we have to be willing to let go of our sins. We have to be able to let go of our imperfections, weaknesses, and past mistakes, and hold on to nothing so we can be cleansed by the purifying atonement of Jesus Christ. So we can become pure.

Just like the color white.

And that, my friends, is the beautiful science {and spirituality} behind light. 

I'll Covenant With My Father

~We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.~

Walking up to the Provo temple this morning, I was admiring the stunning pink roses that line the entire sidewalk leading up to the temple. As I was walking, I noticed this one white rose amidst all of the pink ones. Just one, pure, white rose. Since I was heading into the temple I didn't have my phone with me to take a picture (I ran back out to my car when I was done in the temple to get it and then back up to the temple to take this picture), so all I had was the mental image of this scene to mull over as I waited for my turn in the baptismal font.

I began to consider the metaphor here as I sat at the font, waiting for my turn to be baptized in proxy for those who have passed beyond the veil. I began to consider all of the beautiful pink roses as us, the children of God. And then, more specifically, those baptized into God's kingdom. I began to wonder about the significance, then, of this single white rose. How could one stand out as this rose had? Especially in Provo where there are thousands of beautiful pink roses all around us?

The temple. Of course.

I've now been attending the temple for 73 consecutive weeks, and I've definitely seen the blessing in my life from that service... Though not exactly in the way I had expected. See, when I began attending every week, I knew I would see blessings. I had expected those blessings (or, more specifically, *that* blessing) to be the single blessing that every Provo Latter-day Saint and BYU student hopes and prays for: marriage. It made sense to me. If I'm in the temple all the time, The Lord will see how honest and excited I am to make eternal covenants with him and begin the chapter of my life where I can fulfill my divine potential here in this life by raising an eternal family in righteousness.

I am still very much single. Even after 73 consecutive weeks of dedicated service.

But I've received a blessing just as important and considerably more unexpected, as far as I'm concerned. I've learned what it means to be that one white rose among all the pink ones. This gospel has a lot of rules and guidelines, and we as members tend to see that as a checklist of things to accomplish in order to earn a ticket into the celestial kingdom.

It's not a checklist. It's a lifestyle.

Attending the temple every week has motivated me to live worthy of my temple recommend so that I can continue serving, every week, those who have passed on. Weekly attendance has put more pressure on me to always live worthily. I've even been in situations in the last several months where I've actually told the people that I was with that I needed to stay worthy of my temple recommend so that I could attend the following week, and consequently adjusted our activities in order to better stay in accordance with the lifestyle that The Lord would have me (and us) live. 

President Uchtdorf provided a twist to one of our common religious phrases that I've taken a liking to in the last several months. He suggested that in addition to the acronym CTR standing for "choose the right", it should additionally represent holding a "current temple recommend". This is how we differentiate ourselves as that pure white rose amidst the thousands of beautiful pink ones. We *always* live worthy to enter the house of the Lord, and make an effort to live the covenants we've made as a lifestyle and not as a checklist. We must internalize those covenants so that they are not only a part of us, but in fact, the *whole* of us. That those covenants, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, becomes who we *are* and not just what we *do*.

This is the Lord's true Church restored in these Latter-days by the prophet, and one of my heroes, Joseph Smith. The priesthood keys have been restored so that we can attend the temple and make and keep sacred covenants with The Lord so that we can some day return to live with Him in joy for eternity. I know it's true.

The gospel is such a blessing! 

Contemplations of a Theist Exploring Irreligion

From Wikipedia:

“Irreligion (adjective form: nonreligious or irreligious) is the absence of religion, an indifference towards religion, a rejection of religion, or hostility towards religion.^[1] When characterized as the rejection of religious belief, it includes atheism, religious dissidence and secular humanism. When characterized as hostility towards religion, it includes antitheism, anticlericalism and antireligion. When characterized as indifference to religion, it includes apatheism. When characterized as the absence of religious belief, it may also include agnosticism, ignosticism, nontheism, religious skepticism and freethought. Irreligion may even include forms of theism depending on the religious context it is defined against, as in 18th-century Europe where the epitome of irreligion was deism.^[2]

“A 2012 survey found that 36% of the world population is not religious and that between 2005 and 2012 world religiosity decreased by 9 percentage points.^[3] The Pew global report in 2010 noted that many that are not religious have some religious beliefs and the majority of nonreligious come from Asia and the Pacific.^[4] According to one source, it has been estimated that 40–50% of non-religious people hold belief in at least one deity, or in some higher power.^[5]”

As compared to:

“Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.^[1] In a more specific sense, theism is commonly a monotheistic doctrine concerning the nature of a deity, and that deity's relationship to the universe.^[2][3][4][5] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. As such theism describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism. The use of the word theism to indicate this classical form of monotheism began during the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century in order to distinguish it from the then-emerging deism which contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.^[6]”

As a member of the Honors Society with Utah Valley University while I was working on my Associates of Science degree a few years back, I was exposed to a new way of thinking thanks to the philosophy-based program, small honors classes, and wonderful (non-LDS) honors professors. I began to discover a new, non-theistic way of thinking that I had not been exposed to as a lifelong Latter-day Saint that grew up in Utah County. With the current trend in today’s religious world presenting a decline in theism, I have been interested in the practice of irreligion. I wanted to know why theists believe in God, and why the irreligious do not. I wanted to understand the logic and thought processes of both sides in order to more entirely understand the world (and the people) around me, and also to help me determine and define what I believe for myself. Here is what I have discovered.

You Can Find Evidence To Support Any Idea. The Idea That You Have Chosen To Support Defines Your Personal Relative Truth.

Throughout the course of my exploration, and over the last several years, I have had the opportunity to converse with many different people with many different beliefs. I have come to realize that, especially during theist/irreligious confrontations, conversation tends become personal and no longer about logic and thought process. Generally, these arguments arise because both sides have defined truth differently; therefore, they have found evidence to support their belief but the evidences do not necessarily correlate because they are in different realms of thinking. The disconnect in these conversations stems from where the evidence is being pulled from to support one side of the argument or the other. Apples are being compared to oranges. The irreligious believe that science provides evidence to support the idea that God does not exist. And theists believe that their understanding of religion provides evidence that God does exist.  When in reality, both ways to provide evidence are valid; because evidence can be found to support any truth if it is being researched in the corresponding places. Evidence for history is found in fossils. Evidence for chemistry is found in a lab. Evidence for astronomy is found in the universe. Evidence for religion is found in God’s resources (because if God existed, He would have provided religious resources including scriptures, prophets, etc. for the benefit of His followers). So the religious use said resources to provide evidence of God just the same as the irreligious use the ideas of a renowned philosopher to provide evidence for the idea that He does not.

Science Cannot Define Absolute Truth Because Science Is Subject To Change And Absolute Truth Is Unchanging.

Now, I realize that the irreligious also use science as evidence in addition to philosophy. While they do indeed utilize science as a resource, it is irrelevant to this argument because we only understand science to the degree that we understand the evidence. So science cannot possibly be synonymous with truth. Science is generally accepted to be truth because of the evidence ("proof") that it provides for a specific idea. But science changes. Ideas change. What people once thought to be true we have come to find out are not. Things are assumed to be true because there is more evidence for the one solution that there is for the other. But no revolutions in science ("fact" or "truth") would have come to pass had no one ever questioned the idea with less evidence to support it. That is to say, evidence is perceived to prove truth because we understand it - to the degree that we can understand science. But as we come to understand more about science, "truths" change because we find more evidence. If we all just kept pursuing truth the same way, if no one was ever willing to take an idea that had significantly less evidence on its side and pursue the idea that it could be true instead, there would never be advancements in science. The Nash equilibrium. Gravity. Energy equals mass times the speed of light constant. Heliocentrism.  These were revolutionary ideas in science that were rejected at first because there was not nearly as much evidence for them as there was for the ideas that had been studied and peer reviewed for hundreds of years. People only understand science to the degree that they understand the evidence. But we know from the history of scientific development that if evidence proved truth, we would still believe that the world was flat. If God did exist, it would make sense that we, as humans, would not be able to comprehend the evidence for his existence (e.g. our ability to understand that divine truth could easily and potentially be far beyond the realms of our current scientific understanding and ability to comprehend).

Now, generally speaking, the irreligious believe that theists are closed-minded, one-dimensional thinkers since they have yet to reason and logic their way out of their belief in God (and, therefore, religion). But would it not be less open-minded for someone to decide that one side of this argument was more true than the other? Because that would mean that they are just assuming that something is true (in this case, irreligion) simply because there is more evidence for it (science behind it, "fact" or "truth" to back it up). But we just established that we only understand truth to the degree that we understand the evidence. So taking this position would therefore inhibit one from coming to a better understanding of truth if it is available, yet still undiscovered. And it is a very audacious belief to think that any person has reached a state of complete and perfect understanding based on any scientific, technological, or medical standing. Or any understanding, for that matter.

Lack Of Evidence Cannot Be A Supporting Argument If The Argument Is Based On Obtaining Supporting Evidence To Define Truth.

This is an interesting logic that took me a long time to understand: while the irreligious’ beliefs are based on fact and evidence, the foundation of their argument is lack of evidence to support the existence of God. When at the same time, no supporting evidence can be made to prove the belief that God does not exist, either.  This organization of logic conveniently sets irreligion up to never fail, because it says that truth is only valid if it is defined one specific way: by a lack of evidence on the opposing theistic belief, while their truth is simultaneously lacking proof as supporting evidence for the non-existence of deity. There will always be a lack of evidence. On both sides. What it comes down to is that the irreligious can provide evidence for their belief just the same as theists can provide proof for theirs; the difference, and the most significant part of this exploration, is where the evidence is coming from. Because both sides are flawed, and both sides are sound.

Theism Is A Philosophy. Not A Science.

Different thought processes are used to define religion or irreligion; and while the logical processes are sound each on their own, they cannot be crossed because they don’t make enough sense that way. That is, a historian might approach an astronomer and ask him to prove that the earth revolves around the sun. Because the historian believes that the sun revolves around the earth, like the ancient civilizations did. The astronomer would begin to give supporting evidence for how he knows that the earth revolves around the sun, but the historian would stop him and request that he provides evidence in fossils. Because fossils are what the historian knows. The astronomer would of course respond that he could not provide evidence for the earth’s rotation in the fossils. Maybe after a lot of searching and digging he could come up with some, but none nearly substantial enough to curb the historian’s belief that the earth is the center of the universe. 

Such is the disconnect between theist cognition and irreligious cognition. Now, this example remains true whether I chose to compare astronomy to history, math to literature, or philosophy to chemistry. I chose to compare two of the sciences in this example because this idea is supported further by the fact that scientific evidence is even specific within its own practice. The fact that I can make this point by comparing apples to apples validates the idea that evidence is specific to its own relative practice. Sure, I could have compared apples to oranges in this example since that is the overall suggestion that I’m proposing, but I would receive the same result had I asked a chemist to provide evidence for history. Sure, he may be able to provide a little evidence with carbon dating or similar practices, but in no way could a chemist use chemistry to prove that the abolition of slavery was the catalyst for the civil war in American history.  

The point is: God is not a science. He’s a person. Religion is not a science. It’s a philosophy. And philosophy cannot be proven by science (that’s why it is philosophy). So the argument that God and cannot possibly be real because there is no evidence to support it is a logical fallacy. Because in no instance in today’s world do we try to use scientific evidence to prove the truthfulness of philosophy. Evidences do not cross the bounds of their personal realms because if they did, even if they could provide some evidence to support one thing or another, the evidence is not sound enough to prove ideas outside of their realm. The world does not look to a mathematician’s evidence to prove that a country’s history was accurately recorded. So why are we looking for scientific (or mathematical, or historical) evidence to prove the truthfulness of religion? Religion did not put itself in a science box (that is to say, religion did not claim to have the answers to physical science), the irreligious put religion in a science box in an attempt to make an argument against it. These evidences support their own understanding; not each other’s, and not religion’s. Religion supports religion, just the same as scientific evidence might support physical truths. Because religion isn't about science, or math, or history; it’s about individuals. So why are we trying to use scientific evidence to prove something that’s not a science? Of course that’s illogical. Evidence for religion is found in religion.

If Absolute Truth Does Exist, We Will Never Know. Rather, We Have All Personally Defined Our Own Relative Truths.

A wise BYU professor who had been greatly involved in research once told me that “every study fails at some point” (Dr. Anthony Sweat). He was making the point that every study is flawed, and researchers are not allowed to use the word “prove” in their findings because the evidence is just never sound enough to say one thing really does prove another. And every study can be torn down by a researcher studying the opposite theory. There are flaws in every study, and therefore in science (science is based on studies). So maybe there is absolute truth in science. We just wouldn’t ever be able to prove it due to the flaws in science. Just the same as there may be absolute truth in religion, but we may never be able to prove it due to the flaws in people.

This evidence brings me to the conclusion that if there is really, capital T absolute Truth, we will never know it. We can never know it. Research, facts, and statistics can be arranged in any way that is suitable for the argument being made. If a person’s definition of truth is based off of the current understanding of organized research, then their truth lies in relative physical evidences. But I’m coming to understand that we all do this. We all organize logic in a way that suits our argument. That provides evidence for the relative truths that we’ve decided to live by. Whether or not absolute truths exists, no one will ever know for sure; so it is left to each of us to define what truth means to us at an individual and personal level. For the irreligious, truth is defined by science and research (which is based on imperfect data). For the religious, truth is defined by testimony and confirmation of the spirit (which is experienced by imperfect people). But neither of them can be proved or disproved, which makes them both equally true in different dimensions and through different thought patterns. But different is okay.

Ironically, This Search For Absolute Truth Is What Divides People And Is The Reason That We Will Never See World Peace.

But the world doesn't seem to think that different is okay. The world tends to believe that there can be only one truth. And if we do not all participate in the same truth, then someone is wrong and someone is right. Especially in the argument of theism versus irreligion; which logic is consistent with the argument because either God exists or He does not. The conclusion that I’ve come to throughout my research and study on the subject is that it really doesn't matter. It makes no difference whether or not God actually exists. Because people are going to behave the way they want to behave. The search for God or Truth, this argument that the world is not willing to put aside, is simply an abstract idea that we as people feel the need to incessantly chase. But to what end? I am convinced that if we ever did come to a point where we could observe absolute Truth, it would make little difference in the lives of the majority of individuals in the world. Because just because something is true does not mean that it is the most important to every person.

At the same time, however, there is one truth that we all have in common; one truth that we all agree upon. And that is humanity. The only universal relative truth that I have been able to observe is the fact that we are all individuals. Every human life is as significant as the next. We are to look out for each other. Help strengthen and support each other. Try to be the best person that we can be, on an individual level, to help support and sustain our real, tangible, true, proven, existing humanity. If religion helps an individual be the best person they can be, which is the situation that I find myself in, I don’t see any reason for someone to pursue that relative truth as their foundational belief. Regardless of what religion it is. If someone feels that religion holds them back, and they would prefer to pursue science with the intent to improve humanity and the world that we live in, I see no problem with pursuing that relative truth. As long as we pursue the relative truth that betters us as a person, and make less of an effort to change the way someone else believes, I am convinced that it makes no difference whether or not absolute Truth exists. Because if the search for truth is diving people and distracting them from helping and serving each other, it is not worth finding anyway. 

Eight Cow Womanhood.

A friend of mine asked me the other day where I saw myself 10 years from now. This is a pretty common question, so I was caught slightly off guard when I didn't have (what I though at the time to be) an adequate answer for him. The only answer that I gave was that 10 years from now, when I'm 30 years old, I see myself graduated from BYU, married, and started a family. He had clearly put much more thought into this than I had, for his response was significantly more fleshed out.

I've thought about this conversation a lot over the past few days. See, my entire life has been focused on a single goal: "graduate from college". That's been the goal. And I've worked pretty hard to reach that goal... graduating at the top of my high school class with an invitation to be valedictorian (which I turned down because I was too nervous to speak in front of my entire graduating class at graduation), beginning college on a full-tuition academic scholarship and completing my associates of science degree as part of Utah Valley University's Honor's Society, then attending Brigham Young University to complete my bachelors of science degree in Public Health with an emphasis in Health Promotion so that I could hopefully obtain a job in marketing at a healthcare facility or the state health department. Meanwhile, mastering the art of piano performance, authoring a novel and seeing it through to publication, taking over home/family/horse management responsibilities while my parents fought cancer, and rescuing my horse, training her myself, and taking her to nationals where she stole a Top Ten spot in a class of over 50 professionally trained competitors from across the country. You could say I've been a little preoccupied getting to that goal of college graduation.

But now that I'm 3 semesters away, I'm beginning to realize that reaching this life-long goal of mine isn't the end. Actually, it's only the beginning. Of my life. And I have absolutely no idea what I want to do with it.

Now, this friend of mine that I mentioned at the beginning, the one who spurred this several-day-long thought process, had gone on to explain to me the kind of woman that he was looking to marry. This is a topic that seems to come up pretty frequently in conversation for this stage of life. And I keep hearing the same thing. Young men are looking for a young woman who is driven to do something with her life, and not just do the Mormon-stay-at-home-homemaker thing. I've been thinking especially a lot about this idea. Personally, I don't want a career. Never did. Not for as long as I can remember. You know when you're in elementary school, and the teacher asks the kids what they want to be when they grow up? And the kids respond with "a teacher", or "an astronaut"? Yeah... I didn't want to be any of those things. It wasn't until I reached high school that I came to the conclusion that no, I wasn't just under-motivated to succeed at life. Rather, I wanted to be a wife and a mother. That's the profession that I chose for myself, way back in the first grade when everyone else wanted to be president of the United States.

And I've also realized that this desire came because of my outlook on existence. My innate eternal perspective, if you will.

And then I think about this woman that all the men say they want to marry. Women driven to accomplish something, and not just do the stay-at-home-mom thing. I wonder what that means? Is it that they're really looking for their wives to go accomplish something great? Or is it a type of person that they're looking for that they believe is characterized by being driven to accomplish something? Because if it's the later, I am that kind of person. I'm driven to accomplish goals that I set, and to make something out of my life and my existence. I'm educated, but I've also learned how to think. I know what I believe and why I believe it, and I can carry on a conversation about it. Or about whatever you want to talk about. I'm bold, and determined, and able to do whatever I set my mind to.

Does that qualify me as one of those "driven" wives, even if I don't set out to distract myself from my family and accomplish something great in the world's eyes? Can I be seen and accepted and understood to be that kind of person who's chosen to direct those efforts to my family and to furthering the work of God and building His kingdom?

If not, so be it. I don't need to appeal to that crowd, then.

Because the most important thing to me is an eternal family. Everything else is secondary to that. And if I have time to make a difference in my community, or society as a whole, by volunteering as a member of the American Cancer Society and heading a photovoice project as a thank-you campaign for the Governor for donating the funding to build a Hope Lodge in the Intermountain west, great. And if not, I can still be a faithful, loving, wife, mother, and homemaker. Because it's more important to me to be a woman of God than it is for me to be a woman of the world.

"The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender. There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind. there are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined. We have enough women of fame and fortune; we need more women of faith. We have enough greed; we need more goodness. We have enough vanity; we need more virtue. We have enough popularity; we need more purity" (Margaret D. Nadauld, general young women president, October 2000, The Joy of Womanhood, emphasis added).

So, yes, I believe in being educated. And yes, I believe in being driven. and yes, I believe in accomplishing great things. But everything has a time and a season. And as a wife and mother, family will come very first for me. I'm already educated, driven, and accomplished. And I'll always keep working on being better in all of those areas. But when I finally do get married, I'll be a wife and a mother first and foremost. Even if that makes me "only a homemaker", it doesn't matter. Because I am a daughter of God. And that is what matters.

Let's Talk About Sex.

Elder Holland was President of BYU when he gave an address to the student body in the Marriot Center on January 12, 1988. He entitled it Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments. I highly recommend reading this talk.

In that address, President Holland explained the purpose of sex. “May I suggest that human intimacy, that sacred, physical union ordained of god for a married couple, deals with a symbol that demands special sanctity. Such an act of love between a man and a woman is – or certainly was ordained to be – a sacred symbol of total union: union of their hearts, their hopes, their lives, their love, their family, their future, their everything. It is a symbol that we try to suggest in the temple with a word like seal. The Prophet Joseph Smith once said we perhaps ought to render such a sacred bond as “welding” – that those united in matrimony and eternal families are “welded” together, inseparable if you will, to withstand temptations of the adversary and the afflictions of mortality (See D&C 128:18)”.

It is a sacred ordinance. Not a leisurely pastime. Not to be taken lightly. According to LiveScience.com, the average male loses his virginity at age 16.9; females average slightly older, at 17.4. President Holland, in the late 1980’s, wrote that “In America 3,000 adolescents become pregnant each day. A million a year. Four out of five are unmarried. More than half get abortions. ‘Babies having babies. [Babies] killing [babies]’.  The same national poll indicated that nearly 60% of high school students in ‘mainstream’ America had lost their virginity, and 80% of college students had.” And the statistics are not getting better.

Why do we as a society feel that this sensual sin is less calamitous than others? Why do we justify? Of course, social media normalizes promiscuous behavior. It is the adversary’s way of denying us the gift of the Holy Ghost and pulling us away from our God. Of this, President Holland said:

Where is there in all of this that prompts Alma to warn his son Corianton that sexual transgression is “an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost” (Alma 39:5; emphasis added)?

Setting aside sins against the Holy Ghost for a moment as a special category unto themselves, it is LDS doctrine that sexual transgression is second only to murder in the Lord’s list of life’s most serious sins. By assigning such a rank to a physical appetite so conspicuously evident in all of us, what is God trying to tell us about its place in his plan for all men and woman in mortality? I submit to you he is doing precisely that – commenting about the very plan of life itself. Clearly god’s greatest concerns regarding mortality are how one gets into this world and how one gets out of it. These two most important issues in our very personal and carefully supervised progress are the two issues that he as our Creator and Father and Guide wishes most to reserve to himself. These are the two matters that he has repeatedly told us he wants us never to take illegally, illicitly, unfaithfully, without sanction.

As for the taking of life, we are generally quite responsible. Most people, it seems to me, readily sense the sanctity of life and as a rule do not run up to friends, put a loaded revolver to their heads, and cavalierly pull the trigger. Furthermore, when there is a click of the hammer rather than an explosion of lead, and a possible tragedy seems to have been averted, no one in such a circumstance would be so stupid as to sigh, “Oh, good. I didn’t go all the way.”

No, “all the way” or not, the insanity of such action with fatal powder and steel is obvious on the face of it. Such a person running about this campus with an arsenal of loaded handguns or military weaponry aimed at fellow students would be apprehended, prosecuted, and institutionalized if in fact such a lunatic would not himself have been killed in all the pandemonium. After such a fictitious moment of horror on this campus…we would undoubtedly sit in our dorms or classrooms with terror on our minds for many months to come, wondering how such a thing could possibly happen.

No…in the case of how life is taken, I think we seem to be quite responsible. The seriousness of that does not often have to be spelled out, and not many sermons need to be devoted to it.

So if God holds taking lives and making lives in the same seriousness, why do we lock up those who take lives and look the other way to those who do the opposite? Not only molesters and rapists, but every person that engages in sexual activity outside the sanctity of at least civil marriage is in nearly as much wrong as those who are locked away for taking a life. God views taking lives and taking virginity in the same light. Sexual intimacy is “so right and rewarding and stunningly beautiful when it is within marriage and approved of God (not just ‘good’ but ‘very good,’ he declared to Adam and Eve), and so blasphemously wrong – like unto murder – when it is outside such a covenant” (Holland). 

“You must wait” President Holland insists. “You must wait until you can give everything, and you cannot give everything until you are at least legally and, for Latter-day Saint purposes, eternally pronounced as one”. If we do not wait to give ourselves complete to one, and only one person, within the binding vows of marriage, we are in God’s eyes playing our “own form of emotional Russian roulette”.

So what are we to do? Sex education is necessary.  Difficult, yes. But necessary. Sex is not bad. It is so important to understand that sex is not a bad thing – it is a sanctified privilege that God has entrusted with us, and as long as we use it as it was intended, we come closest to God as we can here on this earth (See President Holland’s talk for the quote on this – it wouldn’t do it justice to insert it here). It can be difficult when teenagers and adolescents grow up always being scared about the consequences of sex. And, yes, this fear is necessary to instill in children to help motivate them through their hormonal years to stay virtuous and pure. But it can be difficult for those same children to change their entire attitude toward sex, literally overnight. Sex education is necessary.

How do we teach, then, these young adults about sex? They need to know what sex is. They need to know what is acceptable behavior before marriage. The For the Strength of Youth pamphlet provides some good guidelines as to what is acceptable and what is not while dating:

Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. The Spirit of the Lord will withdraw from one who is in sexual transgression.

Avoid situations that invite increased temptation, such as late-night or overnight activities away from home or activities where there is a lack of adult supervision. Do not participate in discussions or any media that arouse sexual feelings. Do not participate in any type of pornography. The Spirit can help you know when you are at risk and give you the strength to remove yourself from the situation. Have faith in and be obedient to the righteous counsel of your parents and leaders.

These guidelines are good, but can still be a little vague. We run into the problem sometimes when teaching the law of chastity and the importance of sexual purity because it can be an uncomfortable topic to discuss. Teachers frequently rush over certain topics or provide vague explanations with the assumption that their audience understands what they are referring to. Sometimes, we don’t. To help clarify the law of chastity just a little, and help us all remember the guidelines of the law of chastity, take this analogy.

                Let’s go back to primary, where we are taught all the fundamentals of the gospel. Primary is where we are instilled with the foundation of a testimony that we carry with us throughout our lives. You didn’t think we were taught about the law of chastity in primary, did you? Let’s take a look at the lyrics to this song: “head, shoulders, knees, and toes, knees and toes, knees and toes. Head, shoulders, knees, and toes. Eyes, ears, mouth, and nose”. This simple song can provide apt opportunity for us to remember the guidelines of the law of chastity before marriage.

                Head: keep our thoughts pure. This is especially applicable when in a romantic relationship because both parties need to be mindful of each other. You have to know your individual boundaries, and keep your distance from those lines. If making out causes your thoughts to wander to more inappropriate topics, then making out should be avoided. President Monson said “President David O. McKay advised, ‘I implore you to think clean thoughts.’ He then made this significant declaration of truth: ‘Every action is preceded by a thought. If we want to control our actions, we must control our thinking.’ Brethren, fill your minds with good thoughts, and your actions will be proper.”

                Shoulders to knees: this is the “strike zone”. Great caution should be taken in this area to avoid necking and petting – touching the private, sacred parts of another person’s body with or without clothes.  Knees are also a good reminder that we kneel to pray. Pray for guidance and strength to know and understand, and follow through with, appropriate boundaries and standards in dating. Prayer is also a necessity for anyone going through the repentance process because of unchaste actions. “If any has stumbled in his journey, there is a way back.” President Monson assures. “The process is called repentance. Our Savior died to provide you and me that blessed gift. Though the path is difficult, the promise is real: ‘Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow’ (Isaiah 1:18). Don’t put your eternal life at risk. Keep the commandments of God. If you have sinned, the sooner you begin to make your way back, the sooner you will find the sweet peace and joy that come with the miracle of forgiveness” (Monson, Standards of Strength, October 2008).

                Toes: Stand in holy places, and be not moved. This reminds us to always remember our standards and furthering our testimony, and not “coming down” from our spiritual mountain as the Nephites did when they were seduced by the Gadianton robbers (Helaman 6:38).

                Eyes: Avoid viewing inappropriate things. Pornography is a big factor in this category, but it can also apply to each individual. Don’t view bodies without clothes. Women, dress modestly. The way that young women are dressing can cause the thoughts of the young men that they surround themselves with to think inappropriate thoughts, and encourage them to behave inappropriately. 

                Ears: Listen for the whispering of the spirit. It will help and guide in matters where you are uncertain or unsure about where a line should be drawn. The spirit will also inform you of a dangerous situation that could lead to unchaste behavior, and we need to be very sensitive to this spirit. Avoid situations where the spirit is not present. President Monson advised, “Precious young people, make every decision you contemplate pass this test: What does it do to me? What does it do for me? And let your code of conduct emphasize not ‘What will others think?’ but rather ‘What will I think of myself?’ Be influenced by that still, small voice. Remember that one with authority placed his hands on your head at the time of your confirmation and said, “Receive the Holy Ghost.” Open your hearts, even your very souls, to the sound of that special voice that testifies of truth. As the prophet Isaiah promised, “Thine ears shall hear a word … saying, This is the way, walk ye in it” (Isaiah 30:21)” (Standards of Strength).

                Mouth: take caution when kissing. Before marriage, mouths should only touch mouths. Avoid passionate kissing. President Spencer W. Kimball said “Kissing has been prostituted and has degenerated to develop and express lust instead of affection, honor, and admiration. To kiss in casual dating is asking for trouble. What do kisses mean when given out like pretzels and robbed of sacredness? Even if timely courtship justifies the kiss it should be a clean, decent, sexless one like the kiss between mother and son, or father and daughter.” And again, from Elder Richard G. Scott, "When you are mature enough to plan seriously for marriage, keep your expressions of feelings to those that are comfortable in the presence of your parents." So we’ve got President Kimball telling us to kiss like we’re kissing our mother, and we’ve got Elder Scott telling us to kiss like our mother is watching. And I suppose that is the point. There is a parent watching:

                Nose: The Lord Knows. He knows our thoughts, desires, and actions. We need to be mindful of that and make sure that we are always comfortable with ourselves and the physical actions that we pursue in relationships – or otherwise – before marriage.

               

“Can you see then the mortal schizophrenia that comes from pretending we are one,” President Holland asks, “sharing the physical symbols and physical intimacy of our union but then fleeing, retreating” … “You must wait – you must wait until you can give everything, and you cannot give everything until you are at least legally and, for Latter-day Saint purposes, eternally pronounced as one”. It is so important that we take the law of chastity and sexual purity seriously. God views it as just as serious a sin as murder. We ought to, too. 

I am also reminded of the account in the Book of Mormon where Jacob chastises the wicked Nephites for raping their women: “Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our bretheren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbing of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds” (Jacob 2:35). Of this, President Monson added in his October 2008 conference address Standards of Strength (and, may I add, one of my very favorite quotes of all time): “Because sexual intimacy is so sacred, the Lord requires self-control and purity before marriage, as well as full fidelity after marriage. In dating, treat your date with respect, and expect your date to show that same respect for you. Tears inevitably follow transgression. Men, take care not to make women weep, for God counts their tears” (Conference Report October, 1990, 61).  

And finally, guidance given by Elder N. Eldon Tanner regarding acceptable dating procedure is what I would like to conclude on. “No man, young or old, who holds the priesthood of God can honor that priesthood without honoring and respecting womanhood. Any young man should be prepared to protect a woman’s virtue with his life if necessary, and never be guilty of lusting after a woman or doing anything that would degrade her or cause her to lose her virtue. Every young woman has a perfect right to feel safe in going out with a young man holding the priesthood, knowing that he will respect and protect her in every way” (Ensign, July 1973, 95). And of course, it is not all the man’s responsibility during dating to draw these lines and make this effort to remain sexually pure. It does need to come from both participants. But the reason for the focus on young men is because

“It is [frequently assumed that] the young woman has to assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man cannot. What an unacceptable response to such a serious issue! What kind of man is he, what priesthood or power or strength or self control does this man have that lets him develop in society, grow to the age of mature accountability, perhaps even pursue a university education and prepare to affect the future of colleagues and kingdoms and the course of the world, but yet does not have the mental capacity or the moral will to say, "I will not do that thing"? No, this sorry drugstore psychology would have us say, "He just can't help himself. His glands have complete control over his life--his mind, his will, his entire future."

To say that a young woman in such a relationship has to bear her responsibility and that of the young man's too is the least fair assertion I can imagine. In most instances if there is sexual transgression, I lay the burden squarely on the shoulders of the young man--for our purposes probably a priesthood bearer--and that's where I believe God intended responsibility to be. In saying that I do not excuse young women who exercise no restraint and have not the character or conviction to demand intimacy only in its rightful role. I have had enough experience in Church callings to know that women as well as men can be predatory. But I refuse to buy some young man's feigned innocence who wants to sin and call it psychology (Holland).

This is a serious issue. And one of which I have only barely scratched the surface on today. But the message of this is that sexual intimacy is a serious sin and not one to be taken lightly, regardless that society has twisted it into such distorted proportions that we lock away those who attempt to take life, but readily accept as normality those who engage inactivity to create it. Those of us who are not yet married ought to be much more mindful about our engagements in romantic relationships. And most of us ought to rethink our standards and draw new, more modest, lines when it comes to our behaviors in romantic relationships and dating. A famous excerpt from a well known poet reminds us that if we play with fire, we will be burned:

Some say the world will end in fire,

Some say in ice.

From what I've tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.  

(Robert Frost, “Fire and Ice”)

That burning desire inside each of us that motivates us to experiment with our emotions and feelings associated with sexual intimacy must be carefully and consistently contained. “A youth boiling with hormones will wonder why he should not give full freedom to his sexual desires; and if he is unchecked by custom, morals, or laws, he may ruin his life [or hers] before he matures sufficiently to understand that sex is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a hundred restraints if it is not to consume in chaos both the individual and the group” [Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968), pp. 35-36. And again, a more apostolic voice of warning from James E. Talmage expresses that “it has been declared in the solemn word of revelation, that the spirit and the body constitute the soul of a man; and, therefore, we should look upon this body as something that shall endure in the resurrected state, beyond the grave, something to be kept pure and holy. Be not afraid of soiling its hands; be not afraid of scars that may come to it if won in earnest effort, or [won] in honest fight, but beware of scars that disfigure, that have come to you in places where you ought not have gone, that have befallen you in unworthy undertakings [pursued where you ought not have been]; beware the wounds of battles in which you have been fighting on the wrong side” [Talmage, CR, October 1913, p. 117].  

              If you do find that you have acquired wounds or scars from “battles in which you have been fighting on the wrong side”, the wonderful thing about this gospel is that it is never too late for you to expose those wounds or scars to your Savior and submit to his will. Those wounds are painful to treat, but because of the atoning blood from the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, it is possible to be forgiven for such transgressions. “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool” (Isaiah 1:18). I think there is a lot to be said of this verse, especially how scarlet sins are likened to wool. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, the ultimate blood sacrifice so that we could become as “white as snow”. Pure. Forgiven. Even if we have been plagued by the ugly consequences of sexual sin, we still have the potential to become like our Savior if we choose to apply his atonement and repent. Yes, it is that serious. And yes, it is worth it.