Research Paper

Proverbs 3:5-6

5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Life is difficult.  It has taken me a long time to finally figure that out.  It’s not a cake walk.  But God did not intend it to be.  He states, “And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.” (1)

The question, “If God loves me, why this?” is an age old question.  Many have wondered this.  I would go so far as to say everyone one point and time in their lives asks this question.  I know I have more than once.  I have had many trials. 

Smart people view trials as an opportunity to learn and grow.  Others see them as stupid and a waste of their time.  Why is this?  In the book Mindset by Carol S. Sweck explains that people have two ways to view yourself.  Whichever way you choose profoundly affects you and your life.  The two ways are what she calls the fixed mindset and growth mindset. 

People who have the view of the fixed mindset are those why think everything is set in stone.  In education, these people view themselves as smart or stupid.  As most people have too much pride to admit that they are stupid, the majority like to think they are educated.  Public schools and colleges give inflation to people’s perception of their worth. 

I know personally many adults who think that once they are done with college, they are finished in their education.  They believe that because they have a piece of paper called a diploma they are smart. 

But Dr. Akanisi, who is the Dean of Arts, Law and Education at the University of New England, Australia,(2) disagrees. “We know education does not end with our schooling or training – it is a lifelong process therefore everyone must continue to learn.”(3)  Louis L’Amour agrees with this in his autobiography, The Education of a Wandering Man. 

Sweck goes on to say in her book that the people who have the fixed mindset need to be constantly reassured of their self-worth.  If something proves difficult, then it simply can’t be done.  As part of her research she studied grade school children who were given a puzzle to do.  Most children loved the easy puzzles.  As each child finished the first puzzle, they were given another one.  Each puzzle was progressively harder and harder.  She observed that some children grew excited about the challenge, while others got discouraged.  Why is that?  She says that it is because of the way they viewed themselves. 

The people who she says have the growth mindset don’t love trials.  But they understand and have the wisdom to know that the experiences will be for their good.  “My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; And then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes.”(4)  God tells us here that we need to be patient.  People with the growth mindset just have the persistence to keep trying.

Why is it important to know about the two different mindsets?  Because once we understand the way we see the world, we can begin the process of self-improvement.  The Lord expects us to try to improve ourselves during our time on this earth.  “For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.  And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.”(5)

If we see that we view ourselves in the fixed mindset, I would hope that everyone would take a quite minute to meditate and see if they can shift their way of thinking.  I know as I’ve read Mindset I have taken a few moments to collect my thoughts, to see what I could do to become better.  One purpose of this book I believe is to bring awareness to a problem.  Once people are aware of a problem, they will try to fix it. 

Having the growth mindset doesn’t take away the trials.  It makes them a little easier to bear.  There are some trials that truly are great burdens.  Sometimes we need to trust and rely on God to take care of everything.  His son, Jesus Christ has already felt our anguish, trials, pains, tribulations.  “And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people. 12 And he will take upon him death that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.” (6)

We need to trust in His plan for us.  We need to have faith.  It may be hard, but it will be worth it.  I believe having faith in God and trusting Him to take care of things go hand in hand.

What is faith?  This is a question that many people struggle with.  Many simply don’t believe that there is a god at all.  They proclaim themselves as atheists.  One claim of some atheists that I know of is that humans are the supreme beings in the universe; that there is no other species, or other people on any other known planet. 

Here are some scriptures that define faith: “And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.“(7) and “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (8)

Short Story

A Break With The Past

Almost every significant breakthrough is the result of a courageous break with traditional ways of thinking

　

One day, a long, long time ago, Jacques was walking through the forest on his way home from hunting. He was tired, as he had already walked 10 miles that day. He had been tracking a deer that had taken him 7 miles away from his cabin in the deep woods of France. He still have 4 miles to go until he reached his family. He had shot the deer with an arrow, killing it. It was, however, to big to drag all 7 miles back home. He was headed home to enlist his brothers to haul it back home.

Suddenly, a bright light appears in front of him. The outline of a little person slowly appeared in the center of the bright light. What is this? A devil? Jacques thought to himself. He tried getting off the path to go around the light. But the light slowly moved so as to stay directly in front of him, no matter if he turned to the left or the right.

As the outline of the little person became more distinct, Jacques saw that it was a little green leprechaun. I have never seen one of those before, he thought to himself.

“How do you do?” He says.

“How de do?” The Leprechaun replies. “I am Louis, your guardian leprechaun.”

“Oh. That is nice of you to come introduce yourself.” Jacques made to move away, thinking that maybe the leprechaun would allow him to pass and continue on home. He was discouraged because he had failed to drag the animal home for his family. The deer had just been to heavy after such a long walk. It had been a very hard winter, and he had been so fortunate to get such a large deer.

“What is troubling you, dear Jacques?” The leprechaun smiled as he said the words. His countenance plainly showed dear Jacques that he enjoyed seeing him troubled and weary.

“I am trying to get home to get my brothers. I shot a deer a few miles back and wish to get it home to feed my family. I rather need to hurry, now if you will please excuse me!” Jacques pushed past the leprechaun.

“That was rather rude, you know.” Louis started to float after him. “Very rude indeed. I was going to let you know how you could get the deer home right now, but since you’re being rude I will leave you now.”

Louis the leprechaun slowly started to disappear. His form started to slowly fade away into the increasing darkness.

“WAIT! I am sorry I was rude. Now will you please tell me?” Jacques shouted.


“Not with that tone of voice.” The voice was quickly growing faint.


“Please help me.” Jacques said meekly. Louis was gone.

“That wasn’t so hard, was it?” Louis said suddenly, appearing behind Jacques. The voice behind him made him jump. “Hehe. I scared you!”

“You did not.” Jacques was still affronted by the rudeness of the leprechaun. The leprechaun thinks me rude, he thought. He’s the rude one for calling me rude and startling me.

“Naughty, naughty.” Louis smiled the annoying smile again. “I was going to tell you how you could get that deer home today while it is still light.”

“Yes, yes. Please, will you tell me how?”

“I will. You see that animal over there?” Louis pointed to a small clearing a about 25 yards off the trail. There was a donkey foraging through the grass, looking for something to eat.

“What is that” Jacques asked. He had seen a few of those creatures scattered throughout the forest before. They made loud noises that scared his children.

“That, my friend, is a donkey. It was meant to be a beast of burden. If you make friends with it, it will haul whatever you wish it to. It will even let you ride it.”

“I will not make friends with such beasts!” cried Jacques. “It is unseemly, for such as I, to descend to such lowness.”

“I was only trying to help!” Louis the leprechaun was offended to the highest degree. “I will leave you now, my friend. I only hope the next person isn’t quite a thick headed as you!”

“Good riddance, you fool.” Jacques said under his breath, as Louis disappeared. He kept walking towards his home. He grew more miserable by the minute. He was tired, wanted to eat some good meat, and felt bad for treating the leprechaun so badly. He deserves it, he thought.

Deep inside him, he knew that wasn’t true. It is never OK to hurt someone on purpose. Maybe I need to try his suggestion. he thought. Giving up his pride, he turned back hoping the donkey was still in the clearing. It was.

“Hey, donkey. Don’t be scared of me.” In truth, he was more scared of the donkey than it was of him. He slowly approached it, and held out his hand. He closed his eyes as it got close. The donkey stuck it’s nose under his hand for him to rub. As he began to scratch the nose, Jacques slowly opened his eyes.

This isn’t so bad, he thought. Maybe the leprechaun was right. He withdrew his hand and looked for something to tie around the donkey’s neck. He found a thick vine nearby. Tying it around the neck, he started to lead the donkey down the trail towards the deer.

　

After finding it again and setting it on the donkey’s back, Jacques and the donkey made it back to the cabin in record time. Jacques, in particular, was re-energized by his success. Making it home, his family was overjoyed to see that much meat all at once. His wife set about immediately to cook some for supper.

Jacques stepped outside after a while, to pray to the leprechaun. After saying the words, he looked up at the nights sky. A new shape had appeared in the sky. The moon was in the shape of a smile. Jacques had never seen the moon as anything but full.

Since that day, the moon has gone through the different phases. Humans also started to domesticate and train animals. Jacques soon added sheep, goats, horses, and cows to his donkey. Over time he became a very rich man indeed.

Homecoming talk

Home Coming Talk March 18, 2012

Good Morning, Brothers and Sisters. I am glad to be able to speak today. It has been a while since I got home. But I am glad to finally have this over with. I went to Riverside, California on the mission. It was a blast. I was only able to stay out for 10 months before I had to come home because of knee problems.

I have been thinking for a few days what I wanted to say. As missionaries we went around, talking to all kinds of different people. We tracted, talked to people in parking lots, in parks and everywhere we met them. I am not sure how many people I talked to while I was out in the field. I don’t remember most of the people, or their names. I do, however, remember several conversations quite well.

Most of these conversations that I remember were not very pleasant to have. Some people really do not like our church at all. I ran into quite a few people who hated us. Every once in a while we would run into what we as missionaries called Born-Again Christians.

These are people who have found Christ. They didn’t believe in Him, but they had an experience that changed their views. I am very happy for those people. Christ is awesome! They, however, have a very different view of God the Father and Christ. They would frequently try to argue, debated with us about the different points of theology. This is commonly called bashing. It never got us anywhere with them.

There is a quote I read a few days ago that struck me. It is found in ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’ by Dale Carnegie. “Arguing with another person will rarely get you anywhere; they usually end with each person more firmly convinced of his rightness.’ I saw this first hand whenever my companion and I tried to bash with someone.

So what were some of the theological points that would make people want to argue with us? There were three big ones: (1). The Nature of the Godhead. (2). Revelation and (3). Do we need authority to have the true church?

1. Here are some scriptures, found in the Bible, that describe the nature of the Godhead:

John 4:24:
                    God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Matthew 3:15-17:   And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
John 17:2121 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Genesis 1: 26-2726 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So from these four scriptures we find that God is a Spirit, these is God the Father, Jesus Christ, the Spirit of God, or the Holy Ghost; that Jesus and God are one; and that we are made in God’s image.

How is this possible? We are not Spirits. We have tangible bodies. Spirits don’t! This is evidently something that confused many early Christians because they came up with the Athanasian Creed. This is a statement that most of Christianity today believe.

It states: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.

This is known as the doctrine of the Trinity. It is rather confusing.

The next point that people would frequently argue with us about was that we could not add more revelation to the Bible. We would always here about one scripture, in particular. I am sure any who have served missions heard this one many, many times.

Revelation 22:1818 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

The argument here is that because we have the Book of Mormon, we are adding more scripture to the Bible. We have all the revelation we need, they say. This is the most frequently brought up objection to our church.

Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave a talk on this subject a few years ago in conference. It is entitled: ‘My Words Never Cease.’ He brings up many good points. Among there are: That this scripture cannot apply to the whole Bible because the whole Bible as we know it, with all of the books in one volume, didn’t exist when John wrote this. Many scholars believe that the book of Revelation was one of the first written by John himself.

One scripture we frequently when people went this direction in a bash was Deuteronomy 4:2
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, 
So here God is telling Moses not to add to the word which He has given to the Israelites. If this is still in effect, everything and everyone after Moses would be blasphemy.

The third point which people would try to argue with us was the need for authority. Mark chapter 3 gives us an example of how the authority of God, or the Priesthood, is transferred.13 And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him.

14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
                           15 And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:Here Christ is giving his apostles the authority to perform miracles. In Acts chapter one, after Jesus was crucified and Judas had died, the other apostles chose someone to be with them in their quorum. This is the way that God had intended things to go.

The Catholic Church is the oldest church in Christianity. They claim their authority goes back to St. Peter himself. They understood that authority was necessary. I love this passage the book ‘A Marvelous Work And A Wonder’ by LeGrand Richards.

“Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: ‘You Mormons are ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only on other (Church) in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.”
During the Reformation many people split from the Catholic Church. King Henry the VIII declared himself the Head of the Church of England. He claimed he now had God’s authority on earth. But where did he get it? In the scriptures, the Priesthood was given through those who were ordained to give it. Not someone who claimed to have it.

I don’t know for sure what questions Joseph Smith had in the years before the First Vision. But I would bet he probably thought of these. He said that the different sects interpreted the Bible so differently as to destroy his confidence on other’s telling him which church was right.

So he read the Bible. It is the word of God. He read in James, chapter one verse five. I’m sure most of us have that one memorized. I won’t repeat it. But Joseph Smith went to the Sacred Grove, prayed, and got his answer. God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him and told him not to join any church, but that through him the true church would be restored.

As part of this restoration Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. He was given the lost Priesthood authority by first John the Baptist, then Peter, James and John. Joseph Smith is a prophet, who had God’s authority.

But how do we know he is a prophet? Doctrine and Covenants Section 20:8-12 tells us. This is speaking of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

8 And agave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon;

9 Which contains a record of a fallen people and the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;

10 Which was given by inspiration, and is confirmed to others by the ministering of angels, and is declared unto the world by them—

11 Proving to the world that the holy scriptures are true, and that God does inspire men and call them to his holy work in this age and generation, as well as in generations of old;

12 Thereby showing that he is the same God yesterday, today, and forever. Amen.
The last two paragraphs to the introduction to the Book of Mormon read:
We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost. (See Moroni 10:3–5.)
Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is his revelator and prophet in these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the second coming of the Messiah.

So if we read, ponder and pray about the Book of Mormon we will know if Joseph Smith was a fraud, or truly a prophet. This whole church lies on the foundation of the Book of Mormon. If it is true, and I know it is, the Joseph Smith is indeed a prophet. If it is not true, then everything he claimed is false.

As a missionary, one of the most frustrating things in the world is getting people to read the Book of Mormon. Many people would commit to do so, then would not follow up on their promise. No matter how much we as missionaries talked, we could not convince them that it was true. They themselves had to put forth the effort and test it. Once they truly humbled themselves enough to do so, they felt by the power of the Holy Ghost that the book is true.

I saw this on my mission. One girl, named Jessica, had been going to church for a while and hadn’t read the Book of Mormon. She and her husband move into my area, and we commit her to read it. She does and comes back the next lesson telling us she knew it was true.

I myself have prayed about the Book of Mormon. I know it is true. If you haven’t prayed about it, do it! If you already have, do it again. I have done it several times, and each time I get the feeling that it is truly God speaking to us. The Book of Mormon will bring us closer to our Savior, Jesus Christ. This is my testimony, in the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

The Great Conversation

What is truth?  What are morals?  On what principles can a good government be based upon?  Is there a Supreme Creator?  Is the biblical account of the creation of man accurate?  Did men evolve over many centuries?  What is the purpose of life?  These and other similar questions have been asked throughout the centuries that man has existed upon the earth.   For the purpose of answering these questions, a collection of books, essays, and poems have been collected into one set entitle The Great Books of the Western World.  The introduction to this tremendous resource is entitled The Great Conversation by Robert M. Hutchins.   This introduction is the focus of this essay.

The Great Conversation by Robert M. Hutchins is an awe inspiring essay.  The essay is the introduction to the Great Book Series of the Western World.  The Great Books are a collection of different essay, poems, and books written that have influenced the world of politics, philosophy, religion.  Hutchins argues in this essay that the books chosen for this set make it clear that there has been a Great Conversation going on through history.  

Obviously there have been a lot of books written throughout history.  With the invention of the printing press books have been printed at an ever increasing pace.  In the first paragraph Hutchins that the books included in this set have endured the test of time, inspiring many common people to do great things.  These are the books that are the masterpieces of the Western mind.  Many have been added to this list, and removed at different times.  Some have proven obsolete, or another book may explain the issue better.

Up until the late 1800’s many of the books were required to be read for college.  To be considered educated one must read the books in Greek or Latin.  The thought was something similar to ‘You must read the classics in the original language to appreciate them.’  So many a school boy studied Latin and Greek. 

One particular point stressed in The Great Conversation is that this set of books is not the only great books ever written and that many people will and have been educated without reading any of these classics.   “We do not think they (the books in the Great Books set) are the only books worth reading.”  But a reason is given for the studying of them: “We think that these books shed some light on all our basic problems, and that it is folly to do without any light we can get.”  I think we must follow the advice found in the Doctrine and Covenants 88:118: ‘And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.’

“…Most writers on education hold that, though education through great books and the liberal arts is still the best education for the few, it cannot be the best education for the many, because the many have not the capacity to acquire it.”

This is one statement that I disagree with.  Education has developed over the past year to become a passion of mine.  I do NOT agree with the direction public education is going in, nor do I agree with the way that education is being administered.  In A Thomas Jefferson Education by Oliver Demille, the author describes three modes, or ways, of education.  One is the factory, or mass production mode.  They water the material down, or make it easy to understand.  They pass you through standardized tests.  Not every child learns the same way, or has equal abilities.  The education system now in place treats the students as objects.  Once you finish, or graduate school, you are supposed to be educated or smart.   

There are many ways in which this system is flawed.  Not everyone can read to the same level.  Not every child is skilled in art, math, or writing.  We should treat each other as individuals, not objects.  I for one do not do well with a lot of people around me.  I learn best by myself.  In public schools, this is not an option. 

The second mode  of education is in specialization.  We have many specialists today: Doctors, lawyers, etc.  These professions require a special training course.  I don’t want to be treated by a doctor who knows little or nothing or medicine.  This is a necessary part of education.

The last mode of education is the liberal arts.  This means that you are well read, and have many skills.  You read the classics, write, and speak of them.  This will allow you to have your own opinion, (something lacking in today’s world).   People who have a liberal arts education have the ability to adapt to different jobs and setting.  Specialized people know little or nothing of something unrelated to their profession.  Learning is takes a lifetime, and even then it is left unfinished.

“The results of universal, free compulsory education in America can be acceptable only on the theory that the object of the schools is something other than education, that it is, for example, to keep the you from cluttering up homes and factories during a difficult period of their lives, or that it is to bring them together for social or recreational purposes.” 

I more than agree with the first part, about how the object of school is something other than education.  I have heard a teacher of one the public schools say that the purpose of school is to socialize the kids and to teaching them to work together in groups.   If the kids learning anything, it is an added bonus.

I am shocked at this statement!  School is where you learn how to think, read, write.  Not where you learn to interact with the world.  That should be taking place in the home!  You go to school to learn new ideas, because ideas are more powerful than the sword. 

There are many other great points made in this fantastic essay.  Any lengthy summary of it would take ages to write, discuss, and be read.  I have written but a brief summary of my favorite portion of it.  I highly recommend that EVERYONE of all ages become acquainted with some of the world’s greatest minds by reading The Great Books of the Western World and other great books.

Leaders and Politics

Leaders and Politics

While recently reading the book Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card I began to think a lot about leadership.  The adults knew that in order to defeat the buggars, they had to have a kid, someone who was innocent, and someone who they could manipulate into killing millions of buggars. 

What makes a good leader?  Leaders are often role models for kids.  A role model is someone whom a person can look up to for guidance.  Leaders must make the tough decision, often at a loss of popularity.  They must be willing to sacrifice for the good of others.  They must be totally dedicated.  Someone who is a leader must sometimes compromise.  A true leader must be ethical, dedicated, and willing to do what is right, no matter the consequences.

In today’s world, these types of leaders are hard to find.  There are a lot of athletes who many look to as role models for success.  So who are these athletes?  Kobe Bryant?  Sure, he has been successful on the basketball court.  He’s won five NBA Championships.  But in 2003 a 19  year old woman accused him of rape.  But because he is a “superstar” the woman refused to testify in court, which lead to a settlement.  (click here for the story:  http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2005-03-02-bryant-settles_x.htm)

A good leader must have high morals and ethics.  If he does not conduct himself in a clean, moral way, he is not a good leader.  He is showing kids, who always are looking for role models, that it is good, desirable, or even respectable to act in such ways.  One example of a leader who has very low morals is Newt Gingrich.  He is running for the Republican Nomination for President of the United States in 2012.  He has had three wives, two of which he divorced.  His wife recently came out with some startling evidence of his low morals:  while Newt and his ex-wife were still married Newt asked if she would be OK with an open marriage so that he could continue his romance with his mistress. (Click here for the story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/marianne-gingrich-newts-ex-wife-says-he-wanted-open-marriage/2012/01/19/gIQAJzgwAQ_story.html)  And we as American citizens are supposed to vote for such a man! 

So who can we turn to for our guidance?  Is there anyone who lives today that embodies all of the qualities a true, great leader must have?  I believe we must often times look into the past to uncover some of the greatest heroes.  Not all of the great leaders of history were even known by their contemporaries, such as Alexander the Great. 

I believe that if we are looking for a perfect role model the only place we will find that person is in Christianity:  Jesus Christ.  He is truly the greatest leader, and teacher of all time.  Some may not agree with this statement.

I believe that every human being has faults.  In Christianity we except Christ as divine.  We believe Him to be the only perfect being to ever walk this earth.  For decades the Founding Fathers of our wonderful country were looked to as examples of leaders.  The books written of them and their times were written romantically at times.  They often glossed over the fact that the world they lived in was far from perfect.  That they had slaves, which most people who live now consider anyone who did today as being far from being a moral person. 

That view of the Founders prevailed until scholars and authors began to magnify their many weaknesses being in the 1950’s.  Generations of American school children looked to them as role models.  Today in our schools we have teachers and textbooks mock the founding fathers.  They describe people of amazing ability, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, as nasty hypocrites for holding slaves.  The people of the founding generation fought a bloody war over the idea of freedom, when they themselves kept millions in bondage.

I think any kind of slavery is wrong.  But I do believe that slavery was part of the world they founders lived in.  They did the best they could.  If you have ever carefully read the constitution you will see that the same founders that supposedly loved slavery made a provision, written directly into the founding document of this nation that allowed the federal government to end the slave trade.  They knew it was wrong, but didn’t think it was possible to change everything so radically at the same time.

Change often takes generations to take place.  There are times when radical changes need to happen.  This leads us to another quality true leaders must have:  the ability and knowledge of when and where to compromise with others to accomplish something.  There are times when you have to take a stand for what you believe to be right.

The Founders knew this.  They knew that “taxation without representation” was wrong.  They did something about it.  Several times the British reached out to reconcile the American colonies without relinquishing this right to tax without representation.  People such as John Adams and his cousin, Samuel Adams, knew that this was something they could not compromise.  They led the events that led to our freedom.

An example of the Founders compromising is found throughout the Constitutional Convention in 1787.  James Madison had Edmund Randolph present a plan known as the Virginia Plan, which favored the states with a large population and land mass.  Small states, such as Delaware, did not like it.  They wanted equal representation in any federal government.  The debate on this topic often grew heated.  The small states threatened to withdraw without a new government agreed upon.  Madison, Franklin and Washington knew that this could not happen.  Finally a man named Roger Sherman presented what is known to history as the Connecticut Compromise.  This called for two separate houses in the Congress: the House of Representatives, which would be based on population, and the Senate, which each state would have two seats in, regardless of the population.

How important was it to have membership in the new Congress based on population?  Not very important evidently.  The founders knew that they had to come up with a compromise.  You will not win every battle you fight.  There are times when you must stand up for your beliefs. 

I believe that every man, woman and child can become a great leader.  How many mothers and fathers have been excellent role models for their children, even helping others to life themselves a little higher?  My parents are excellent examples of leaders.  They are always willing to serve others to help improve their country and community.  History books may never be written of their lives, but that does not diminish what they have done and the kind of leaders they are.

There are many examples of leaders and leadership demonstrated throughout history.  There are many great leaders today.  I believe we must all strive to become better leaders so that one day, if history calls upon us to lead a great cause, we will be prepared. 

Feelings.

So tonight I had a visit with a Stake Presidency member,  President Anderson.  I went to have him endorse me to be worthy to go to BYU-Idaho.  Well, the discussion went a very different direction.  He started asking me questions about the mission, how it felt, was it hard, and other things.  Then he started telling me that he thought that I didn't have a desire to go back on the mission.  He asked me straight up if I had a desire to return.  I told him I had absolutely no such desire.

We got into a big discussion about how having desire makes all the difference.  He asked if I had done everything possible to go back.  I believe I've given 99%.  He wants me to give 110%.  As far as I was concerned, I was through with the missoin.  I had tried hard, did my excercises, and felt good about not heading back on the mission.  I still do now.

But he said that if I walked away right now, that I'd always be miserable.  That I'd always wonder what would have happened if I went back.  I have those thoughts now.  I believe I always will.  He wants me to try everything possible to go back, starting with my desire to.  If I have no desire, then I won't do it.  Desire is key to everything.  If I don't want to, I won't. I must admit that the desire is not here now.  But President Anderson asked me to pray to have it restored, and I will.

He also asked me if I would attend the temple every week.  I am going tomorrow morning. I will try my best.  He also wants me to write in my journal everyday as well as reading my patriarchal blessing daily.  I plan on doing those things, as I should have already been doing them. 

So I have a few questions.  Is something wrong with not wanting to go back.  Am I in the wrong?  Is there someone else out there for only me to find?  Can I reach a few more people?  Is it the right thing for me to do?  What is right at this point in my life?  Should I seek employment?  What will happen to James and Steven's education if I leave?  I want them to be awesome, (like me) and to truly understand themselves.  I don't know the answer to those questions.  Right I honestly feel like my service as a misisonary is finished. I truly do believe that. That may change, but those are my feelings.  I also am very unsure of my future.  I guess I just need to trust my leaders, and do thing simple things of life. 

So my plan for moving forward:  Stay at church, go to temple often, write on my blog daily, read my patriarchal blessing daily, continue studying, writing and thinking.  There should never be a time when I'm not adding to my knowledge of the world, whether secularly or spiritually. 

This article can be found at:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/21/the-ideology-of-isolationism/

Supporters of Ron Paul have re-launched an old ad promoting the old idea of American isolationism.  “We now are a nation known to start war,” Paul is quoted as saying.  “We feel compelled because of our insecurity that we have to go over and attack these countries to maintain our empire.”  The message here (and repeated elsewhere) is that Paul’s isolationism is aligned with the Founding Fathers and “what is truly American and truly constitutional.” Not only is this refrain a gross misrepresentation of American history but it offers dangerously misleading guidance to a nation that faces serious challenges at home and abroad.

Following this lead, some are tempted by the myth that our Founders were isolationists who sought to withdraw from the world and focus solely on the home front. At a time of international fatigue and anxiety about America’s future, I understand the sentiment.  But it’s simply not the case.

The Founders rejected modern approaches in American foreign policy—whether power politics, isolationism or crusading internationalism. They especially disagreed with the “visionary, or designing men, who stand ready to advocate the paradox of perpetual peace,” as Hamilton put it in Federalist 6.  Instead, they designed a truly American foreign policy—fundamentally shaped by our principles but not ignorant of the place of necessity in international relations.

The classic statement of this is Washington’s Farewell Address, sometimes wrongly read as isolationist dogma. Yes, Washington rightly warns us against “the insidious wiles of foreign influence” and yes, Washington correctly states that in extending commercial relations we should have as little political connection with those nations as possible.  That’s not isolationism but common sense.  Washington goes on to state the objective: “to gain time for our country to settle and mature its recent institutions, and to progress, without interruption, to that degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, command of its own fortunes.”  And again:

If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel.

Rather than trap themselves in some absolute and permanent doctrine of nonintervention in the world, the Founders advocated a prudent and flexible policy aimed at achieving and thereafter permanently maintaining the sovereign independence for Americans to determine their own fate.  And without providing for our own security, how can we hope to control our own destiny or command our own fortunes?

The requirements of security are dictated by the challenges and threats we face in the world. “How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?” Madison asked in Federalist 41.

The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. They will, in fact, be ever determined by these rules, and by no others…. If one nation maintains constantly a disciplined army, ready for the service of ambition or revenge, it obliges the most pacific nations who may be within the reach of its enterprises to take corresponding precautions.

The dangerous ambitions of power were to be found in the passions of human nature. As Hamilton wrote inFederalist 34:

To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and that to model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.

Necessity dictates that the United States must be ready to fight wars and use force to protect the nation and the American people.  Hence Washington often liked to use the old Roman maxim: “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of promoting peace.”  The Founders made sure they were prepared and were not reluctant to use force.  How else can we choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall counsel?

National security is a challenge for all nations, but particularly for democratic political systems dedicated to the limitation of power.  Many actions necessary for security employ the use of force and proceed in ways that are often secretive and less open than democracy prefers. Likewise, national security sometimes requires restrictions and sacrifices that would be inimical to personal liberty were it not for significant threats to the nation.

The solution to this dilemma is not to deny the use of force or to make it so onerous as to be ineffective. Rather, it is to establish a well-constructed constitution that focuses power on legitimate purposes and then divides that power so that it does not go unchecked, preserving liberty while providing for a nation that can—and will—defend its liberty.

Government spending, its massive bloat and constitutional overreach must be on the chopping block. But the core and undisputed constitutional responsibility of the United States government to provide for the common defense is not up for negotiation.

At a time when we should be seriously thinking about our strategy and commitments anew in an increasingly dangerous world—doing so in the context of unlimited government spending and uncontrolled debt that threatens to force us in to national bankruptcy and undermine our very sovereign independence—we should be wary of claims, however tempting in the moment, that the naïve ideology of isolationism has a place in the pantheon of America’s principles.