Question of Perfection

The question of the evening is: What makes something perfect?

I realized that there is either no such thing as 'perfect', or every single thing is 'perfect'.

Imagine looking at a bowl of soup, and wishing you had something to use to get the soup out of the bowl and into your mouth without getting your fingers or chin mucky. Then imagine a perfect utensil for this job. Maybe you think of a large straw, or a spoon of some sort, or an elongated bowl or something. Well each of these things would be useful and one of them would likely work best, and in this situation, it could be labeled as the 'perfect' utensil. But then imagine the same utensil in a different situation. Now you've got a spoon or straw etc and you've got a plate of spaghetti noodles. 'Now what?' You ask yourself, as you try to get just one blasted noodle onto that spoon. Now, is that spoon still perfect? Yes it's perfect for the soup, but we aren't staring at soup anymore... So is the spoon perfect?

If we say 'yes' the spoon is perfect even though we are staring at spaghetti, then it would not be a huge leap of logic to assume that most if not all things are at some point 'perfect' somewhere or sometime else in this world, but perhaps not here or now. Yet on the other hand if we say 'no', the spoon is not perfect as we stare at spaghetti, then it would not be a huge leap of logic to assume that there is nothing that is perfect in the world because we can always find at least one situation where in the object would not be useful or 'perfect'. It is a matter of perspective as to whether you say 'yes' or 'no', and that is what makes the spoon perfect or not. It's a matter of timing, opinion, and the ultimate goal.

Timing:
At one point in time my shoes were perfect. A perfect fit, and perfect comfort and perfect style. Now they are worn, dirty and frankly imperfect. At one point in time the bow and arrow was the perfect weapon, now outdated, guns are preferred for hunting. Timing helps decide when something is perfect or not. So perhaps everything is perfect, somewhere and sometime in the world, but just not right there or right then.

Opinion:
Priorities and goals of different people also conflict in the quest for perfection. One person may deem some project or invention perfect, but that's according to their standards, and to another it is imperfect because of the standards they have set out for it. Opinions affect the final say of whether something is perfect or not because who or what is to say whether or not something is perfect unless it has some sort of observer to say so.

The ultimate goal:
And of course, who or what can to say that something is perfect unless there is something to measure it against such as a goal or an ideal. Otherwise there are just things in this world with no particular greatness or value to them other than the mere fact that they exist. The ultimate goal of the creator of the object/invention says whether or not the object is perfect, judging between its beginning vision and end product.

And if we present something that is perfect for a job, useful in every function, and then add to it, does that make it imperfect compared to when we started? My opinion is that no, I think not. Because, at the time of its first presentation, it was appropriately perfect for that time, but as time goes on, I think there tends to be a greater need and therefore has the potential to be perfected again. Like a hairdo. One is perfect for school, whereas another hairdo is perfect for a luncheon with the Queen of England.

Forgotten Lessons

Hello. My name is Sera. I pronounce it "Sarah" though. I can spell my own name now. My middle name is harder to spell. I went to kindergarten once.

I remember the big blocks we used to play with. I played with Jeff and we made dinosaurs out of the blocks together. The dinosaurs were as big as I was. That was the first time I was told that I should clean up after myself. We had a lesson on it. I remember the blue frilly shirt mom picked out for me to wear and the pink clothes with skirts that I don't like anymore. I remember the fake food we would pretend to eat during play time. The teacher told us not to really put them in our mouths, because of tiny invisible things called germs or something. I remember using little stuffed animals and tiny kid-sized pillows to sleep on when they turned out the lights. I was usually the only one awake during nap time. I never slept very well. I remember my favorite white bear that I took to nap time with me, and I remember other kids fighting over the rest of the stuffed animals. I cried when kids called me mean names.

Things were so much easier back then. When I was small.

If someone stole my toy or pulled my hair, I could go cry. It was so simple. It would make it all better... After the teacher scolded them, of course. If I had a runny nose, I could wait until the teacher gave me a tissue paper to wipe my nose with, and that was okay. If I fell and scraped my knee, it was okay to cry about it, and the teacher would help me up and take me to the sink and wash my cut and put a bandage on it. And it was not a bad thing to feel hurt back then. It was okay to cry. It was normal.

But I can't solve my problems like that now. Problems are so much harder today. Grown ups don't like it when others cry. I think they don't know what to do because they're all the same height. They're the same size now as the teacher was back then, back when it was okay to cry. They don't know if they should be like the teacher and help people up, and clean their cuts, or if they should be like any other kid from class and cry along with them. After all, we are all the same height now. And instead, in the middle of the confusion between being teacher or class mate, they usually leave, not sure how to deal with what they left back in the room. And the other tall person is left where they were, feeling sad, and still crying, and now a little ashamed that they cried in front of another tall person.

Did I miss that lesson somewhere? The one that told us kids that it's still okay to cry, even when we grow up? Did someone forget to tell me that sometimes people need a hug when they cry, because we all need to feel? Did the teacher just not know that people need love and care, even when they are all grown up? Did she just forget to tell us? Or did her teachers not tell her that if she scraped her knee, it's okay to cry? And that it was normal?

Well, I must have missed those lessons. But I've found out through my own life that sometimes teachers don't know everything. Sometimes nobody knows anything, and all we have left is our feelings, and all we are, is confused little kindergarten kids. Someone out there should let us know that it's okay to feel lost and confused and that it's okay to cry. Someone should tell us that it's still normal.

I am someone.

It's okay to cry.
It's normal.

I think they forgot to tell us that.

I have truly begun to realize the convenience and quite frankly, the joy of elopement. After planning my mother's wedding, a bridal shower, and been part of several other weddings and plannings... I am amazed at the time, preparation and stress involved. It's so incredibly hectic to try and organize every article of clothing for the wedding party, and the table arrangements, and the little kids with their little tuxes, and the microphones and equipment...

I've decided I want to elope.

I want to elope just to get away from all the stressful people who think that two bags of potatoes and five bags of buns and two massive containers of mayo and all the many bags of veggies, as well as the three turkeys won't be enough and that we must get more! I finally get why people get stressed on their wedding days. I used to think it was because people planned on certain things being there like a grand staircase or a red carpet or a specific outfit for the groom that made it stressful because it just didn't work out, and they just want these things so badly... that it must be... But it's not because of all the planning or even because of lack of planning... it's because there are so many people that think that it must be done a certain way and won't accept 'no' as an answer! And because people don't cooperate. At least that's what I think.

But I won't be eloping.... because I know my mom would really hate to miss it. So... Ok, she can come...

... but then if I let her come, I should probably let her husband come...

...and if they come then his parents should probably be allowed to come...

...and maybe my brothers would want to be there if my mom was there...

...and their wives and kids shouldn't be left out...

...and food should probably be provided especially if there is a good distance to travel...

...we should probably get a building booked to have a dinner...

...because that already is a lot of people...

...And if we have food, then tables and chairs would make sense...

Wow... weddings are stressful... I should just elope.

Darkness exists due to the absence of light.

I must have been fairly bored to be staring at my hand so intently. The way the light hit it just so.... I’m sure I looked equally odd when I held my hand still and moved my head down to get a look at the shadowy underside of it. But luckily no one was in the room, so there was no witness to my odd behavior.

It was about that point when I came to a conclusion about light and darkness. Here is an observation, which can be seen at any point in time by any person with access to the sun, a candle or even a child’s plug in night light; it’s not new information. I relate the metaphor to life. Light being anything that uplifts and makes one to feel better in the long term. Darkness being anything that depresses and makes one feel worse in the long term.

Here is the metaphor.

You can light a candle or lamp or turn on a light in any dark room, and the result is a spreading of light through out the whole room, the brightness of the light depending on the power behind the source. Light spreads in all directions, insistently outward, bouncing off the white walls, traveling quite a distance into and around the room, and reflects off of mirrors. In this way, light is shared and spread all over. The light naturally disperses everywhere, lighting everything it can reach.

But these qualities are not reproducible with darkness or shadow. A shadow or darkness cannot spread every direction through the room by lighting a ‘dark’ source, or bouncing off the walls or reflecting in a mirror. Darkness doesn’t spread itself or naturally disperse like light.

I looked at my hand and noticed that the light is only blocked in small areas by objects, and that that is what causes shadow. The light source is there, and then the object blocks the light source's reach to a certain area. That's what darkness is. You can't burn a dark candle, and make a shadow light. You can block the light to small degrees by placing objects in the way of the light, but shadow and darkness does not spread like light. You can have a singular shadow from an object, but there is no type of burning, spreading darkness.

There is one more piece to this. And that piece is that candles, or any light needs a source or fuel. It needs energy or fuel to keep it going. The only power the darkness has over the light besides blocking portion of it's reach, is the power of giving up or drying up. When the fuel runs out or the source dries up, there is darkness. So if we continue striving, hoping believing and trusting, we have power over the darkness, but as soon as we give up, darkness can take over. Other than our own hope drying up, light and goodness prevails.

This is the metaphor I came to realize while staring at my hand. Oh the things we think when we are bored. And yes, I am very glad for the blessing of every once in a while, having nothing to do, being bored enough to stare at my own hand and the light casting shadows on it.

We don't succeed in spite of obstacles, we succeed precisely because of them.

Becoming Identical vs. Becoming Unified

Please read Ryan's orriginal blog, which others of you can read here, because then I think this will make more sense... I figured I should write my thoughts here, instead of in the comment under his blog.

Ok. I bet you already knew this, Ryan, but I had the thought, so I wrote it down. :)

Just by presenting this question, about individualism vs. unity, I believe you are being an individual. Simply by offering this question out to us (the readers), you are being an individual, thinking and expressing your thoughts. And by posing the question, you inspire others to think about and consider answers. Without your 'individualism' in this instance, methinks we wouldn't have this common ground to work our thoughts off of to better understand one another. Without 'individualism', there would be no reason to try to understand one another, no reason for developing 'people skills', no reason for these simple basic life skills, that are obviously needed to cope in life.

Without individualism, there would be no need for understanding different perspectives which we can obviously tell, that there is a need for. If God wanted us to have no differing of perspectives, in order to be 'unified', He would have needed to take away every thing that gives us any differing characteristics. We would need to be the same in skin color, gender, size, and be identical in every way (which I think is the real issue here, the confusion between becoming identical and becoming unified). In order to be 'unified', he would need to allow us no human contact due to the differing of perspectives, simply by our different visual perceptions. Yet this is not the case.

Individualism provides us an opportunity for understanding, and therefore of unity. If our thoughts are understood by each other, then we can grow and develop towards being edified, and therefore, unified. It is through being edified that we find truths, and correct principles, which are anchors in life that once understood, begin to unify us.

We have our individuality, our own personalities, our own flares, but still we can have a common understanding which brings us out of the slums of mockery, slandering, and other attitudes which further us from each other. This common understanding is greater than we are. It's not just understanding one perspective out of the thousands, but God's greater perspective which sheds light on how everything works, and why people are the way they are, and how to interact and live by correct principles. But this does not mean it steals our tastes, goals, tendencies, talents, passions, love or individuality to become unified through understanding.

I suggest that it is this 'individualism' which spawns the ability to attain 'unity'. I believe that it is due to, and because of our individuality that we are able to be unified.

Womanhood Rant

I made sure to get up early. To dress well and make myself presentable. Even though I was super tired. I then drove the two whole blocks to the building. Yes. I drove the whole two blocks. In a car. But it’s cold out there, I reason to myself, and it’s winter and I’ll be late if I walk. Of course this is the same rationalization I use every Sunday. And one would think I’d plan ahead, and just get up earlier so that I could dress warmly, and walk the two whole blocks, but by the time I think of it, it’s time to go get in the car so I can get there on time.

So I’m sitting there. First class, and they start talking about ‘Womanhood’. I nearly rolled my eyes, picked up my stuff and drove the whole two blocks back home. But I only rolled my eyes.

When they start talking about ‘Womanhood’ my mind shifts into full gear, and I begin analyzing everything they say, trying to pick out that something, anything at all that I must have missed so entirely last time. Because last time… and the time before that, and the time before that… and the time before that… I was just as confused as the first time.

‘Womanhood’ is one of those topics that I don’t know what to do with. I get annoyed and depressed with the topic because when they talk about women, they either make them out to be better than men because we can have babies (gasp!), or they say “It’s all right, you’re special too… we just can’t think of a reason how exactly, so just trust us ok?”

They tell us “Men have the priesthood, and are the head of the house. They have the priesthood and the authority so that they can serve you, and provide for your needs, and everything is about you, you, you, and the priesthood was given to men so that they could better appreciate you, and learn to serve you… blah blah blah…” Or they say “Men have the priesthood, which is an amazing power directly from God, and men lead the church, and lead the home… but don’t worry, you don’t need to feel like you’re useless, you can have babies and men can‘t! So… ha!”

Great. I sarcastically sigh. They never really equalize it. They try so hard. They keep saying “Don’t worry, men and women are equal!” But they never give any support for this argument. It’s so easy to say.

I know that I see this through a filter that I’ve come to accept over the years, but that’s because I have seen no evidence to support that statement “Don’t worry, men and women are equal!”
We have no life, we’re pregnant for ten months, during which time our mobility and activities are limited, and then after we have a kid, we clean and care for the kid, while the guy goes off and does fun and important-type stuff…

There are lots of mothers out there who become pregnant with a child for ten months, and that is hard enough, and then she has to breast feed the kid every three hours or something every day, no matter if it’s night time, 3am or not, and don’t forget that she has to change the diapers and all that wonderfulness. They’ve got these babies inside them for ten months, and then once they give birth, the baby is stuck on the outside for another year or so ‘til they learn to walk, and then these women go and have another one!

‘Womanhood’ isn’t just about giving birth and raising kids. I’ve heard many talks and lessons about how great women are, and it’s always tagged in there somewhere, that everything we do is all tailored to the idea of giving birth and raising kids. Well, I beg to differ. I want to hear just one talk, one lesson about how individuals are great. How women are individuals and men are too, and that that is the reason God made us, so we could live and be people of agency to make good choices and come up with good ideas. This is what I feel is missing from all of those talks and lessons and speeches on ‘womanhood’. They say it’s first and foremost about raising children. But I say it’s first and foremost about the potential for being amazing people. It’s not about being living, breathing, reproduction machines. I have joys and talents and desires and ideas and ambitions. I am a person, disassociated from the idea of having children.

I am a person first, who gets up early in the morning on Sunday, gets dressed and makes herself presentable even though she’s tired. I am a person first, who has strengths and flaws and decides drive to a church building every Sunday that’s only two blocks away. Yes, I’m flawed, but I’m an individual first, and then second there is this amazing, sacred duty encompassed by the word: “Womanhood”.