Tag: understanding

  • Attack in Michigan

    Attack in Michigan

    For those who didn’t hear, there was a shooting at an LDS church 18 days ago. I’m not sure if this was big news outside of LDS circles. Sad when there is “just another shooting.”

    For these last two weeks I’ve considered writing something about the attack.

    It felt like something I should write about.

    But I didn’t know what to say. Especially with all the conversation that started to come up around it, I didn’t really want to contribute to that.

    But again, I felt like it was something I should write about.

    The first thing I felt when I heard the news was a real, deep sadness. A quick, deep sadness, like a punch of sorrow to my gut.

    The next thing I felt was a little ashamed of myself. There are shootings often. Unfortunately. When this happened, it hit me hard. I found other recent shootings that I hadn’t heard anything about. Every shooting brings me sadness. Why did this one impact me so much more? I guess because this shooting happened against my people, I felt it more.

    I don’t like thinking in terms of “my people.” Polarized, tribal views is one of the major issues in America right now.

    Still, these were my people. I now had images of being with my congregation on Sunday when a nightmare might start. These were followers of Christ. These were my brothers and sisters.

    What happened in Michigan hit me. But it’s not what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is the response.

    What should separate members of the body of Christ? How should members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints act? How should true followers of Christ respond to an act of violence against them?

    If we are true studiers of the Book of Mormon, true understanders of the Gospel, and true readers of the Bible, we should know that the response should be love and compassion. No matter how hard that is.

    So when I read that a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not a member of the attacked congregation, but a member nonetheless, when I heard someone started a fundraiser for the family of the man that did something indescribably wrong, I held back tears.

    I encourage you to read that last link becuase Dave Butler, the man who started the fundraiser, makes some good and important points.

    It’s not easy to forgive your enemies.

    Is this a story of forgiveness or is it a story of empathy, love, and compassion? It is an example of all those things. This was just a way for a community of people to show all those attributes in a difficult circumstance.

    We have a commission to look after the widowed and fatherless. There was now a family that needed that. The human family showed its true character when it stepped up to help the widowed and the fatherless.

    If we could just show more love, compassion, forgiveness, and empathy in this world, how different would it be?

    I am proud of my church.

    I am proud of Jesus Christ’s church.

    I’m proud of our members and what we represent. I know that aggression against the followers of Christ will increase. I wrote about this last week. I hope our faith is ready to withstand the trials that await us.

    I hope that throughout our trials we can always remember that love, compassion, empathy, and forgiveness are always the right choice.

  • Yelling Coaches

    Yelling Coaches

    I grew up with a lot of yelling coaches. There’s one in particular I still have nightmares about. He was a coach who communicated in only one way: yelling as loudly as possible. I always had the feeling he hated me. As an adult, looking back, I haven’t gained a new perspective on this. It hasn’t become one of those, “He yelled at me to make me stronger, and he really did care about me.” No. I still think he hated me.

    I didn’t respond well to yelling.

    One of my concerns when I started coaching basketball 5 seasons ago was how I would handle yelling. As I mentioned in How do we speak to others, I have an inherent aversion to yelling. I didn’t want to yell period, let alone at my girls. I was worried how the girls I coached would respond to me if I wasn’t willing to yell at them. Would they respect me? Could I discipline them?

    What I’ve found, and I’m grateful to report, is that in my experience you don’t need to yell at anyone to get them to respect you. A quiet, private chastisement or loving criticism is 1000 times more effective than yelling or publicly embarrassing a player.

    There was one game I’ll never forget. We were beating the team badly in the second half, but it hadn’t always been that way. It was a close game through the first half. But as the second half got going, their coach started to get flustered. The coach was yelling at the refs and their players constantly. It was a classic case of a coach losing their cool as the game stayed close. This was obvious from my seat. As the coach yelled at the refs more, their players lost focus and started complaining about the officiating as well. Then the coach started turning their frustration on the players, yelling at them after turnovers or mistakes. I saw their team quickly devolve. Players were throwing their hands up in frustration. After every play, they were looking to their coach to make sure they weren’t about to be yelled at. It reminded me so much of my time playing for my yelling coach.

    That was the reason our lead extended in the second half until we were blowing them out. I always wonder how a coach can expect their players to stay calm and composed if the coach themselves is unable to do so.

    At one point in that game, when the opposing coach was yelling at one of their players, a player on my team who was sitting next to me on the bench looked up at me and said, “Thank you.”  I replied, “What?” and she said, “Thank you for not being like that coach and yelling at us.” That was about the best coaching compliment I’ve ever received.

    I explained to that player my coaching philosophy. Yelling doesn’t help. All yelling does is put everyone on edge.

    That same player, at the end of the season, gave me a card with a note that read, “Thank you so much for this season. I loved playing with you as a coach, thank you so much for being the coach. I hope you have a great time with your wife and Ivy” (this was before Sage).

    If you’re wondering why and how coaching is rewarding, there it is.

    So, do I yell? The season from this example (3 seasons ago now), I actually had to apologize to my team on a couple occasions. There were a couple games where I wasn’t proud of how I acted on the bench. I lost my cool, exhibited frustration on the bench, and sometimes yelled. One time I snapped at a player in the heat of a game. I felt really bad about that. I pulled that player aside afterward and apologized. At practice after a game where I got frustrated and started yelling, I explained to the team my philosophy: how can you stay composed if I don’t? I told them I was disappointed in my behavior and planned to be better.

    I hope that taught those kids something about accountability. If I don’t hold myself accountable, how should I expect to hold them accountable? I doubt they’d ever had a coach admit to being wrong. I wonder, how can we expect these athletes to respect someone who doesn’t admit when they’re wrong?

    One more story from this last season, our first at Notre Dame Prep. We had a really good team this year. We were 15-0 with two games to go. I knew this second to last game would be our toughest test. At halftime, my worries were justified as we were down two points. Throughout the first half I had to constantly reign myself in to keep myself from losing it on my players. They weren’t playing like themselves and I was disappointed. It was only after that I realized they were doing their best, but the lure of that undefeated season had really gotten into their heads. As I was walking from our bench to our locker room, I was prepared go crazy on my team under the guise of lighting a fire under them. If you’ve played serious sports, all these coaching tropes probably sound familiar.

    As I walked from our bench, I received wise words from Cameron. He said, “Before you go in there, remember that these girls have never been down at halftime.” He clearly saw in my face what was about to happen in that locker room. I’m glad he did. He saved me from what would have been a mistake. He was right. These girls didn’t need to get more flustered by not only being down at halftime but then getting yelled at in the locker room. How could I expect them to be composed if I wasn’t? Instead, I put a smile on my face, walked in, and told the girls how awesome it was to be in a close game for once. I then got into the things we needed to do better.

    Now, our team had some stern halftimes throughout the season. As a coach, you’re perpetually trying to lift your team higher, no matter how much you’re winning by. But, what would I have taught those girls if, in the one game they were losing, I walked in and blew a gasket? I would have taught them the worst possible thing – that habits, and effort, and sportsmanship, and accountability were not as important as winning and losing. That is not a lesson I want to instill in any young person.

    As for yelling productively, another fear I had, that didn’t end up being a problem. I used to wonder if I could coach when I don’t like to raise my voice at all. I quickly learned, that in the intensity of a game, I can’t help but raise my voice – to the players on the court, so the ref can hear a question I have, in the huddle over a crowd. This is what I consider productive yelling. My fear of not being able to yell during a game is lost. If anything, I need to tone it down. Those games can get exciting and intense and sometimes I’m tempted to run to half-court in the middle of a play to call a timeout because the ref won’t look at me (that happened).

    Productive yelling is good. Yelling to try to demean a player or to get their respect is not. Especially when that yelling is insulting or embarrassing, which it often is. I didn’t respond well to yelling when I played and it’s my experience that a lot of kids don’t.

    Winning is fun, but it’s not our primary goal as a coaching staff. These girls will all go on to have jobs, be professionals, get married, have kids, and do all the things that make this life rewarding and challenging. Our primary goal as a coaching staff is to prepare our student-athletes to be prepared for life. Basketball will pass. But learning to keep your cool under pressure, have confidence, do your best, and treat and speak to people with respect will better them for life.

  • Does God get Impatient?

    Does God get Impatient?

    Sometimes I have heard the comment when discussing scripture that God “lost his patience.” In this way of thinking, enough was enough for God. The Lord of Lords and King of Kings had come to the end of His straw. His patience was lost.

    There are countless examples we can look to where a perceived loss of patience occurred. In these examples, our human eyes see a loss of patience. Examples include the times the Lord told Moses He was going to destroy the Israelites (Exodus 32, Deuteronomy 9:12-14) or Uzzah touching the ark (2 Samuel 6:6-7).

    Does God change His mind?

    Various Google searches of “Is God impatient” come up with many titles like “God is patient – until He isn’t.” I propose that this is not the right way to think about God. I lose patience with my toddler, often. We all lose patience, often. Does God “lose patience” with me? I don’t think so.

    Remember the omniscient thing? Omniscience=all knowing. If God knows the beginning from the end, how can He lose patience? He knows what’s coming.

    From this link during some of those Google searches:

    “God is never said to be patient about things or circumstances. Why? It is because He knows all things. He knows the beginning from the end. He does not have any need of that kind of patience. When we speak of the patience of God, we are not talking about enduring hard times; we are talking about being longsuffering toward people.”

    David Hocking

    Patience, like time, is a human thing. It doesn’t apply to God. We apply it to Him in our attempt to understand Him. But how can God be “patient” if He already knows everything?

    So why are these examples, where it seems like the Lord changes His mind, included in the scriptures? Why is the account of the Lord saying He was going to destroy the Israelites and raise up a seed through Moses, only to “change His mind” included in the Bible?

    The question, “Why is it in the Bible” is almost always answered, “to teach us about Christ.”

    Let’s look at the Moses example.

    Moses is talking to Jehovah when he pleads on behalf of the children of Israel. He is interceding on their behalf. Who does Moses represent here? – Jesus Christ, our advocate with the Father. So, in this case, Moses was being a type of Christ and Christ was assuming the role of God the Father. We were learning from this scripture that Christ is our advocate with the Father, the same way Moses was the advocate for the Israelites with Jehovah.

    We must be careful in applying our human traits to God. God is not us. He works on a completely different plane. We can’t comprehend His ways and it’s important, because of our lack of understanding, we don’t lessen His power and perfection in our finite minds.

    God doesn’t lose patience with circumstances. He can’t. He knows all the circumstances. He knows the beginning. He knows the end. God doesn’t lose patience with us. He can’t. He is perfect in everything, including His love for us. He can want the best from us, He can want us to be better, He can want us to make better choices. But He DOES NOT lose patience with us. He is longsuffering. He is loving. He is perfect.

  • The God Question: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and God

    The God Question: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and God

    This is a version of an essay I wrote for a science and religion course. That’s why it has such an “official” tone, and the headlines. I don’t share this because I think it’s an extraordinary essay. But I do think I made some decent points about the “God issue” in science. When you spend this much time writing an essay that fits the theme of your blog, it’s just gotta be shared. So here’s my essay on intelligent design, evolution, and God.

    Intelligent Design and Evolution

    God is the center of the debate between science and religion, and in particular the debate between the theories of evolution and intelligent design. To claim any other conflict ahead of the question of whether God exists is to distract from the root cause that separates these theories. If the question of God’s existence could be solved one way or another, then evolution and intelligent design could coexist and potentially benefit one another. Unfortunately, the existential question of God will never be solved by science. Therefore, with God being the center of the issue, exploring the “God issue” between evolution and intelligent design is the best way to help the two theories reconcile with one another, even if the true question, “does God exist?” is never answered.

    The God Question

    Believers of evolution and believers of intelligent design have more to agree upon than is often realized. However, there is one topic or question that creates a gulf between the two fields. That question is: Does God exist? When evolutionists and intelligent design proponents come to understand this as the main question that separates them, it may be possible to relate and coexist, and therefore grow as fields of knowledge alongside one another. It is the loud voices of ardent atheist evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett who pronounce aggressive disbelief in God, and it is the loud and passionate voices of creationists who oppose belief in the undeniable evidence of evolution that create this void (Wolf, 2006). The milder, middle-of-the-road voices get drowned out by the louder minority. The believer in intelligent design who accepts the facts of evolution and the believer in evolution who can see the merits in intelligent design theory are the voices that bring these two fields to an agreement that benefits both. Intelligent design need not deny many aspects of the theory of evolution. Evolution need not devalue the merits of the theory of intelligent design. At the root of the conflict is the belief in God. Coming to understand God as the major issue and question can bring both sides into more agreement, or at the very least, a middle-ground of mutual understanding.

    Historical Belief in God

    The thinking of the world has transitioned aggressively from a belief in God. While there has been a movement away from God, especially in scientific communities, as can be illustrated in countless scholarly writings such as The God Delusion (Dawkins, 2006) and Why Intelligent Design Fails (Young & Edis, 2014), a large portion of the world still believes in some higher power, some creator that put humans on this earth. It is nearly impossible for a firm believer in God to remove that innate belief from their consciousness.

    In the book The 5000 Year Leap, Cleon Skousen (2011) discusses John Locke’s famous Essay Concerning Human Understanding. “In it Locke pointed out that it defies the most elementary aspects of reason and experience to presuppose that everything in existence developed as a result of fortuitous circumstance. The mind, for example, will not accept the proposition that the forces of nature, churning about among themselves, would ever produce a watch, or even a lead pencil, let alone the marvelous intricacies of the human eye, the ear, or even the simplest of the organisms found in nature. All of these are the product of intelligent design and high-precision engineering” (Skousen, 2011, pp. 95-96). Locke’s thinking agrees with the teleological argument of intelligent design put forth by William Paley in the 1700s (Crashcourse, 2016). Locke continues to expound on this topic by pointing out how a man can come to know God exists. Skousen concludes with Locke’s thinking, “And because any thoughtful person can gain an appreciation and conviction of these many attributes of the Creator, Locke felt that an atheist has failed to apply his divine capacity for reason and observation” (Skousen, 2011, p. 97).

    These examples from Locke are used to illustrate a point. It was not long ago that disbelief in God was deemed a ludicrous proposition. It wasn’t long ago that these theists were the louder voices. Historically, those with no belief in God have been discriminated against and ridiculed similarly to how science ridicules belief in God today. Ridicule of the belief of God is as counterproductive today as the ridicule of not believing in God has been throughout history.

    Attack on God

    An outspoken opponent of theism in the scientific community is Richard Dawkins. One of the basic attacks Dawkins uses against God is comparing belief in God to belief in any number of mythical creatures. Dawkins often refers to belief in God as being similar to believing in a Flying Spaghetti Monster (Dawkins, 2006). Dawkins says that because people believe in something ridiculous like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, doesn’t mean he has to accept it. This analogy is not close to comparable. There aren’t books handed down for centuries about belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There isn’t a majority of the world population believing in Flying Spaghetti Monsters. We don’t have any support for the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monsters. This is just one example of an unfair attack from the “militant atheism” that Dawkins proposes (Dawkins, 2008).

    Scientists like Dawkins ignore the evidence that does exist out there because it doesn’t suit their needs or beliefs. This is the opposite of scientific progress and something Dawkins is “militantly” opposed to. There are many unexplained phenomena with adequate scientific evidence behind that scientists like Dawkins disregard simply because it’s phenomenal and they can’t understand it. Take, for example, near-death experiences. The catalogs and books being put together of people of different cultures, ages, demographics, and backgrounds all detailing a similar experience is dismissed out of hand. Science is based on observation. If any other phenomena like gravity or momentum had as much documented support as near death experiences that have been cataloged, scientists would explore further, not dismiss automatically.

    Another main critique of intelligent design is that the theory mentions design without defining who the designer would be. The reason intelligent design refuses to mention the designer is obvious. The mere mention of God is liable to get extreme backlash from the scientific community. Furthermore, it leaves the concept open to the many interpretations of the nature of God and who the creator may be across varying religions. This is an example of why the attack on God is counterproductive. It creates the dynamic where intelligent design theory talks about an ambiguous “designer” without simply stating that the designer is a theorized divine creator. God is the answer to the question of who the intelligent designer would be, and yet because of the aforementioned loud minority, God is not specifically mentioned. The issue is that while so many believe in this designer, in and out of the scientific community, no one can say the name for fear of being criticized.

    Intelligent Design within Evolution

    There is plausible proof of many elements of evolution. However, this does not remove the possibility of the influence of intelligent design. That is to say, it is conceivable that the world can evolve while also having the influence of an intelligent designer that planned for this evolution and progression. The two theories need not be at odds with one another. Intelligent design and evolution both have holes and flaws in their theories as Darwin himself admitted (Leddra, 2010). Neither theory is perfect. If either theory were perfect, there would be a definitive answer. That’s why they are still classified as theories. The conflict really comes down to one question: is there a God? This is where the entire conflict between intelligent design and evolution lies. That question will not be answered decisively by either science or religion.

    Science will not answer whether God exists. That will always be a matter of faith. If that question is answered it will mean that God has revealed Himself and His purpose, as science will never disprove God. This is obvious, for you cannot prove that something does not exist. If there is a God and He reveals Himself and His purposes, designs, and methods to humanity, then the conflict between intelligent design and evolution will instantly become a moot point. Humanity will know for a fact how living things came to be. The question of if they evolved, how they evolved, and God’s role in it, and these debates between intelligent design and evolution will become null and void. 

    Conclusion

    These examples showing the change in how God is perceived in both society and science, and how science has changed in the attack on God, go to show the underlying cause of all the controversy. It is ultimately about the existence of God. We can conclude, then, that it is extremely important for religion and science, and their respective theories, to consider how they can coexist with one another. By rejecting even the possibility of a God, science limits itself and its ability to explore the universe. By rejecting evolution, the theory of intelligent design limits its ability to coexist with science. Science will benefit by cooperation between the theories of intelligent design and evolution. This cooperation ultimately hinges on finding a way to reconcile the question of God, for the ability of all theories to progress to their fullest potential, and the furthering of knowledge for humanity.

  • Float

    Float

    If you’re a parent and ever get frustrated with your kids (every parent), especially if they are younger kids, you need to check out the Disney short called “Float.”

    It’s only 6 minutes long and can be watched on Disney+ or HERE.

    I have to remind myself often that Ivy is constantly experimenting. Everything she does is an attempt to understand the world around her. She’s never really trying to make a mess or destroy things. She’s only trying to see how that food that’s thrown will splatter and land.

    This Disney short reminds us that all children are unique and special. No matter how challenging our children are, we must remember they’re the greatest gift in the world. Every so often I have to pause and watch Ivy and think how amazing it is she is what she is. She was nothing 3 years ago. Today she is a living, breathing, experimenting, ever challenging, extraordinary person.

    I have to constantly temper what I think I want from Ivy.

    I want her to be confident, but I like it when she is quiet and reverent in public, especially at church.

    I want her to be independent but one day I’ll desperately miss her wanting to hold my hand.

    I want her to want my attention. Unless I’m busy.

    I want her to laugh and have fun and show joy. Unless it’s too loud.

    I want her to ask for help when she needs it, but I want her to do things she is capable of without me. At the same time, like the hand holding, one day I’ll desperately miss when my babe needed my help.

    All these contradictions we go through as parents.

    This is a short post just to be a reminder to all parents that your children are special. What makes them difficult and challenging is what makes them special. We aren’t meant to change our children. I actually think they’re meant to change us.

    Watch Float.