Should we Fast on Thanksgiving?

Before you start a riot the week of Thanksgiving, the answer is “No,” we should NOT fast on Thanksgiving! However, we can and should fast IN thanksgiving. This means periodically dedicating a fast to show gratitude for the blessings we or others close to us have received. While fasting in gratitude is less common today, it was very common in the Book of Mormon.

After Captain Moroni’s first battle, where he defeated Zerahemnah on the banks of the river Sidon, he and his men returned to the capital city as heroes. While the Nephites were accustomed to defeating the Lamanites in battle, they were shocked at the lopsidedness of this victory. Captain Moroni’s use of armor had worked better than anyone hoped, and everyone was even more impressed that the Lamanites had entered into a covenant of peace. The record states, “Behold, now it came to pass that the people of Nephi were exceedingly rejoiced, because the Lord had again delivered them out of the hands of their enemies; therefore they gave thanks unto the Lord their God; yea, and they did fast much and pray much, and they did worship God with exceedingly great joy.” (Alma 45:1).

Did you know we can fast in gratitude? Usually, we fast for special blessings on behalf of ourselves or others, but if you think about it, a fast is like a day-long prayer. According to the Bible Dictionary, prayer is a form of work, an exercise in faith. The whole time we are not eating, we are essentially exercising faith that God can and will provide the blessings we seek as part of a meaningful fast. Because of the additional sacrifice of food and drink, fasting can make available blessings that may not come by prayer alone. (Matthew 17:21). When we pray, we give thanks for our blessings, and request blessings. In a way, fasting is like a supercharged prayer. God has commanded us to “seek” and “ask” and “knock,” we are supposed to pray for blessings and fast for blessings. Nevertheless, occasional prayers expressing only gratitude are both appropriate and meaningful. Fasting is no different. We can give thanks as well as ask for blessings in our fasts, but too often we only ask for blessings as part of our fast. In our defense, it may not have occurred to many of us that we can also fast in gratitude—not because we are bad people, but because we didn’t realize it was an option.

So, I’m not suggesting we fast on Thanksgiving, that beautiful, delicious holiday we get to enjoy every November, I’m just saying that, like the Nephites, sometimes when we fast we can begin with a prayer as usual and tell Heavenly Father that we are so thankful for a particular blessing or blessings we or others close to us have received, that we aren’t even asking for anything during our fast, but only fasting in thanksgiving.

In addition to fasting for blessings and in gratitude, we can also fast in mourning. The Nephites often fasted when their loved ones had been killed in battle. (Alma 30:2). Fasting brings us closer to the Spirit, and nothing is better than the Spirit at comforting those who are mourning.

Learning about the power and importance of the fast is one of the great blessings of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Most of us have already seen the blessings that come into our lives through fasting. In accordance with the Book of Mormon, these blessings become even richer if we also fast in thanksgiving and in mourning. So, no, don’t skip Thanksgiving dinner this week. But, as you consider the richness of your blessings during this holiday of thankfulness, you just may decide to skip a couple of meals in gratitude this next Fast Sunday. Because sometimes, after some blessings, even sincere, heartfelt prayers of gratitude don't feel like enough to show God how thankful we truly are.

The above is adapted from an excerpt in my recently published book, Shake the Powers of Evil with Captain Moroni, published by Cedar Fort, and now available at Deseret Book.

On Helping Children Love to Read

My four sons would readily agree that I am no paragon of parenthood. However, some of those same sons might actually know what the word “paragon” means, because each of them loves to read. My goal here is not to explain a process for teaching children HOW to read, but rather describe one way that has helped our children learn to LOVE reading. You see, I am a firm believer that anyone who doesn’t love to read has simply not yet read the right books.

My wife worked very hard to teach our sons how to read, I can’t take any credit for that. However, she and I together have done our best to help each of our four sons learn to love reading, and the key was to follow a simple progression of particular books at particular times, as outlined below:

1. First, lay the foundation by reading out loud to your children long before they learn to read. Using the many wonderful picture books that are available, help your young children learn to associate books with happiness and family and time. Learning how to sit, quietly absorbed in a book, is as important as learning to run through the neighborhood playing with friends. Great picture books such as Who Will Tuck Me In Tonight?, When Dinosaurs Came With Everything, Counting Crocodiles, Pout Pout Fish, Click Clack Moo, Weslandia, and so many more, are as fun for parents as they are for children. Take the time to find your own family favorites.

2. Once your child learns to read well enough to struggle through very simple sentences, give them the first Calvin & Hobbes treasury. Calvin & Hobbes has been key to helping our sons learn to love reading. Young children are fascinated by Calvin’s antics and with Hobbes’ constant transition between reality and fantasy. Many of the jokes initially go over their heads, but many more land in the most delightful way. Your children will work and struggle to understand Calvin & Hobbes to a degree that will surprise you. They will not realize that they are “reading” in that process, only that they want to know so badly what crazy thing Calvin is up to today. Bill Watterson’s humor hits on so many levels, and he scatters vocabulary that will push your children not just from one level of reading to the next, but along and through and around multiple levels of reading at the same time.  My four sons range from ages 8-16, and they all circle back to Calvin & Hobbes at least two or three times a year.  Calvin & Hobbes is what they read when they want a break from reading—how awesome is that?  They treat it like an old friend they can visit anytime, who demands nothing of them but a smile. And, they find new things to laugh about at each new age.

3. After your child is fully ensconced in Calvin’s world, you should begin reading low level chapter books to them, such as the Magic Tree House series. My wife discovered this wonderful series and has read them to our children for many years. They follow a very predictable format, are written for young children, and can be read out loud quickly. Once you have read a handful of them out loud, you can confidently hand the next Magic Tree House book to your child and watch them take off from there. You may also use the Elephant & Piggy books by Mo Willems during this phase (which are incredible) and the always-awesome Berenstain Bears series.

4. After Magic Tree House, the next step is Beverly Cleary and Roald Dahl. These books are not gender specific, and are just a blast. You can start them with Fantastic Mr. Fox or Ramona & Beezus. Both authors have between 10-15 books and there isn’t a bad apple in the bunch. Also, each author has a very different style, so it exposes your child to a broad range of writing. Beverly Cleary is real and insightful about the most common daily occurrences, her writing is timeless. Roald Dahl is real in a very different way, and also so fantastical and crazy that he keeps your child guessing on every page. Frankly, if you haven't read these yourself, you're missing out.

5. Depending on how quickly your child moves through Roald Dahl and Beverly Cleary, you can move on to the next step, or just linger here for awhile. There are many wonderful authors in this same category as Cleary and Dahl, such as Edward Eager, Jean Craighead George, Scott O’Dell, Lynne Reid Banks, Betty MacDonald, John D. Fitzgerald, Gary Paulsen, E.B. White, Brian Jacques, and many more.

6. The series that will seal the deal on your child’s love for reading is nothing less than Harry Potter. There will be no going back. Fourth or Fifth grade is typically a good time to start the series, but you may decide to make them wait until they are a bit older before reading the later books. These are individual, parent/child decisions. If you do decide to delay them for a time in the middle of the series, there are plenty of other books to fill the gap, such as Narnia, Michael Vey, Rangers Apprentice, anything by Madeleine L’Engle, and many more.

One of the reasons my wife and I worked so hard to help each child develop a love for reading is faith-based. We both felt that it is difficult to obtain a love for the scriptures without first developing a love for reading. We felt that children who are accustomed to spending hours with a beloved book may be more willing and able to spend meaningful time in the scriptures. My wife and I both love the scriptures, and in addition to regular family scripture study, we make sure our children often see us reading the Bible and the Book of Mormon.  

In addition to the process described above, there are some religious books that can help you reinforce scripture study and a love for reading at the same time. The Who’s Your Hero? series by David Bowman is a great resource to help your elementary-school aged children relate to the scriptures. For teenagers, there is the Work and the Glory series by Gerald N. Lund. Give your teenager the first book in the Work and the Glory series and watch them go off on their own and have beautiful, personal, and powerful spiritual experiences centered around the Restoration of the Gospel that have nothing to do with you.

I cannot emphasize enough the powerful boost to your child’s testimony learning church history through The Work and the Glory can be. By placing your child “in” the story, they are able to "see" early church history figures as regular human beings who did their best to follow Christ, but were not perfect.  As a result, your children will be much less susceptible to concerns about the fallibility of leaders, because they will feel like they know them, and their weaknesses, personally. The Work and the Glory will help your children become more like Lorenzo Snow, who remarked in his journal, “I saw the imperfections in [Joseph Smith].  I thanked God that He would put upon a man who had those imperfections the power and authority He placed upon him ... for I knew that I myself had weaknesses, and I thought there was a chance for me. ... I thanked God that I saw these imperfections.”  The new Saints series is also a great follow up. I believe that scripture study and significant time spent reading about church history go hand in hand.  And such exposure is much easier if you have first helped your children to gain a love of reading.

Great books fill in the gaps of life to overflowing. A love of reading will help your children emotionally, academically, religiously, and on and on. Children who read for pleasure are often better able to finish their reading assignments in school, but if a child doesn’t already have a love for reading before their academic reading requirements increase significantly, they will associate reading with negative thoughts and feelings.  This negative association is hard to undo.

I don’t pretend the above process will work with every child, but I do believe it will help many more children learn to love to read than otherwise.  Now, if I could only figure out how to help my sons make the jump to reading literature like Dickens, Austen, Hugo, Dostoyevsky, Twain, Jewett and so many others.  I even tried meaningfully targeted incentivization with my oldest, but to no avail.  

There are so many wonderful books out there, I would love to hear about the titles and authors that have helped your kids learn to love reading.

A favorite bookshelf I built

Is it Robbery to be like God?

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.”  Phillippians 2:5-7

The above New Testament scripture seems to be a clear invitation to become like God.  In fact, it expressly states that doing so is no robbery, or diminishing, of God. How can this be?  Can we actually become like God? Does He even want us to?

This post assumes God is both omniscient (all knowing) and ominopotent (all powerful).  Additionally, I argue there is a third component to God’s perfection: He is all generous.  I rely on Matthew 7:9-11 for proof of God’s perfect generosity:

“Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him.”

I have four sons, and I never let them win at anything.  With very few exceptions, whenever I play any kind of game with any or all of my sons, I try to win.  And, since I am bigger and older, I usually do. One exception is when my youngest was 6, and we often played Chutes & Ladders. Notwithstanding my best efforts, he won something like 25 games in a row.  As a result, I am convinced there is no skill involved in that game, and that the Universe loves that sweet boy.  I don’t blame the Universe for preferring him, he's a wonderful kid.  

I’ve always wanted my children to look forward to the day they beat me at anything, to reach for it, to work for it.  You see, I want each of them to be better than me, and my playing small doesn’t get them there. I hope that each of my sons exceed me in goodness, in wisdom, in judgment, in honesty, in achievement, in work ethic, and on and on.  Frankly, I don't pretend I've set the bar all that high, and I also don’t think I'm unique. I believe the vast majority of parents truly want their children to become better human beings in every way than we ourselves have been.

So, returning to Matthew 7:9-11, why would we expect any less of God?  If we, being evil, desire that our children become better than ourselves, how much more so God?

To say that God does not want us to become like him seems a logical conundrum.  Has He blessed us with a generosity toward our own children that He Himself does not possess? I don’t think so.  Does He not know how to help us become like Him, even though he is omniscient? I don’t think so. Is He incapable of helping us to become like Him, even though He is omnipotent? I don’t think so.  

No doubt there are some among you blanching at this very conversation.  It’s blasphemy, is it not? To seek the attributes of deity? I’m not sure the New Testament agrees.  

Romans 8:16-17 says "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."

It's important to note that Christ was unceasingly accused of blasphemy for believing that he was the son of God.  It is also important to note that there is a difference between Christ, who was already perfect, and ourselves, who are clearly not close to perfection.  There is no doubt that we are not like God currently, this post is only discussing whether it is possible to eventually become so, and whether it is God’s will.

I argue yes and yes.

Christ argued much the same when in John 10:34, to support His own claim to godhood he quoted Psalms 82:6 and said "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

Many people see the idea of becoming like God as a selfish wish for power and dominion. Since when was that ever what it meant to become like Christ? God’s power flows from and through His perfect attributes.  A desire to become like God is merely a wish to be that kind, that generous, that honest, that much of a blessing to others.

I believe that God does what He does because of those rare moments when we are overcome by gratitude for his goodness, and look up in pure, heartfelt thankfulness.  God is the ultimate fixer upper. He loves leaving the ninety and nine and going after the one. I have a thing for revitalization.  I love seeing a rundown area of town go through its own renaissance. I once considered a career as a City Planner. Figuring out ways to encourage and invigorate the forgotten and discarded is not only the bread and butter of HGTV, but also a God-like attribute.  Among the great joys in this life is truly helping another child of God to believe in God, to believe in themselves, and in their ability to improve their life.

Isn’t that what parenthood is all about? Doesn’t it seem like family life is just a practicum for what happens after this life?  If God gives us life (in part) for the gratitude we show and the joy it brings him to see us progress, and if we can all share in that same joy here on earth by helping others, why would he deprive us of the opportunity to continue to do so after this life?  

If you don’t believe that God wants us to be like Him, why not?  Either you are denying His omniscience, His omnipotence, or His goodness (referred to as omnibenevolence).  Or maybe you just don’t think that is part of His plan for us. Perhaps you conceive an existence for us in heaven that is so different than our current consciousness as to make our current desires and interests obsolete and irrelevant.  Personally, I believe that the Christ who came back and cooked fish over coals for Peter was essentially the same person and personality as He was prior to His resurrection. And I believe we will be as well.  

Desiring to become like God is not a selfish wish, but rather a recognition of our own imperfect, fallen state, and of a soul-deep desire to cast off the natural man and carry on God's work and glory: the immortality and eternal life of man and woman. God doesn't glory in His greatness, He glories in us, our progress, our growing goodness. I believe in a continuation of the joy I feel when I catch one of my sons being kind to another son when he thinks no one is watching. 

I don't know how God makes us like Him, I only know nothing is impossible with Him.  Christ doesn't seem to think it's impossible either, because he commanded, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”  Matthew 5:48. I don't believe God has unreal expectations for us.

Perfect today? No. But someday, long after this earthly life, and with Christ's help?

Yes.

Getting the Most out of March Madness

Virginia: From chumps to champs

Virginia winning the national championship one year after becoming the first #1 seed to lose to a #16 seed has to be one of the greatest sports stories of the decade.  In fact, March Madness has always been about stories, and the Tournament Selection Committee knows it.  March Madness is even more enjoyable if we let these stories become part of our own.

There is abundant evidence that the Selection Committee considers the stories of teams and players when creating the annual bracket.  Was it coincidence the Committee positioned UCF to play Duke in Round 2 this year?  UCF coach Johnny Dawkins was the player who started it all for Coach K.  He was Coach K's first blue chip recruit.

Coach K and Johnny Dawkins

After leaving Duke, Dawkins enjoyed a long NBA career before becoming Coach K's top assistant.  Dawkins then took the head job at Stanford, only to return to Duke for several more years, before moving on to UCF.  Coach Dawkins' star player this year was his son, Aubrey Hawkins, a sensational player who cut his teeth as a boy running around Cameron Indoor Stadium while his father assisted Coach K.

No, there are no coincidences with the Selection Committee.  They knew exactly what they were doing matching up Duke and UCF.  Another example from this year is the first round matchup between Louisville and Minnesota.  Until the recent pay for play scandal, Louisville's coach was Rick Pitino. Some coaches always seem able to help their teams perform in the tournament, no matter their regular season.  Pitino was one of these, along with guys like Tom Izzo at Michigan St. and Bob Huggins at Cincinnati and then West Virginia.  These coaches' teams consistently go deep in the tourney, no matter their seeding.

Richard (left) & Rick (right)

This year Louisville faced it's first tourney Pitino-less, so the Selection Committee decided to make amends by pitting them against Minnesota . . . who is coached by none other than Richard Pitino, son of Rick.  Another coincidence?  Unlikely.  Minnesota won a very emotionally charged game. 

In 2010 Duke won the national championship with a collection of role players.  No one from that group made an impact in the NBA.  Although Duke was a #1 seed, they were not expected to win the tournament that year.  Back then I ran my brackets like a hedge fund manager.  I had 6-8 brackets entered on ESPN and almost every game saw me rooting for and against both teams.  I was a basketball schizophrenic.   Even though I graduated from Duke Law School and was a big Duke fan, since conventional wisdom had Duke losing in 2010, none of my brackets had Duke making the Final Four.  When Duke won it all, several people congratulated me and commented on how well my bracket must have performed.  When I sheepishly informed them that I had not chosen Duke, they couldn't hide their surprise and disappointment.  I was considered a sellout for not having supported my school.

It was time to rethink my basketball world.  When March 2011 rolled around, I made some changes.  First, I decided to choose Duke to win every year.  Duke had won four times in 20 years, so odds were that about every five years I was going to be very, very happy.  I figured I had no hope of accurately guessing which particular year Duke would win, but that I could take comfort knowing eventually Duke would win.  Sure enough, when they won in 2015 I ended up in the 99.8 percentile on ESPN's Tournament Challenge.  More importantly, I had a blast riding their winning streak.

The second change I made was to create only one bracket.  No more hedging.  Since I didn't participate in paid pools anyway, I realized I wasn't hedging my bets, I was just hedging my happiness.  I decided to stand by my choices and invest in every game.  I wanted to feel the full joy of victory; therefore, I had to accept the full agony of defeat.

Third, I decided to look for stars and for stories.  I realized that every so often a star was able to impose his will on March Madness.  Carmelo Anthony, Stephen Curry, Kemba Walker etc.  These players each took over the tournament, bringing us along for the ride.  I decided to hitch my wagon to players like these, knowing that every few years I could look forward to riding a star's wave of success.  For example, this year I picked Murray State to win as a #12 seed because I believed Ja Morant was going to rise to the occasion.  He was spectacular in his two games.

As far as stories go, I think the best example is Wichita State.  The Wichita State Shockers are not historically a basketball powerhouse, a distinction that belongs to their in-state neighbors, Kansas.  I write in-state neighbors instead of in-state rivals for a reason.  Wichita State and Kansas are not rivals.  Kansas, the blue bloods of the Big 12, would not condescend to play the local state school from the podunk Missouri Valley Conference.  In fact, Kansas hadn't agreed to play WSU since 1993.

In 2007, Wichita State Coach Gregg Marshall took over a middling team with little basketball tradition and soon had the Shockers winning 30 games a year.  Tournament wins followed and in 2013 they lost in the finals to Louisville.  Marshall turned Wichita State into a Final Four team, but Kansas still wouldn't play them.  Chris Webber even said on national television that Kansas was scared to play Wichita State.  Finally, the Selection Committee took matters into their own hands, because that's what they do.

Kansas, are you listening?

In the 2015 tournament, Kansas and Wichita State were positioned just like Duke and UCF in 2019--if they both won their first round matchups, they would play each other.  When they each won, the state of Kansas went crazy.  Most of America had no idea what was going on behind the scenes of this game.  Because I happened upon an article about the bad blood between the schools and saw a story, I picked Wichita State to win.  I was sure Wichita State would be looking for vengeance.  Sure enough, it was a 78-65 shellacking that was far worse than the score shows.  Kansas didn't have a chance.  And even though WSU lost their next game to Notre Dame, Shocker Nation didn't care.  They had beat Kansas.

So what's the point?  I think we can get more out of March Madness.  Of course, you can continue filling out multiple brackets in an effort to hedge your way to the top.  Or, considering my 7 year old beat 95% of ESPN talking heads both of the last two years, you can fill out your bracket to maximize your tournament enjoyment.  Create one bracket, look for players you want to root for, teams with a chip on their shoulder, and coaches who know how to squeeze out tournament success.

This year I felt Virginia's story demanded my attention.  I picked them to go to the final against my beloved Blue Devils, then I stared at that matchup for quite awhile.  I knew Duke gave Virginia two of their three losses on the season, and I also knew Duke had a transcendent star in Zion Williamson.  But I feared Duke couldn't beat Virginia three times in one year, and I also saw Tom Izzo's MSU team standing in Duke's way.  Izzo just knows how to hit the kill button in March.

I was at an impasse.

In the end, I stuck with my rule to choose Duke, knowing I would never forgive myself if Zion cut down the nets in April.  Duke was my team, and Zion was this year's star.  Surely that was more significant than Virginia's story.

This confluence of storylines, stars, and coaches made this year's tournament especially enjoyable.  Johnny and Aubrey Dawkins vs. Coach K and Zion; Pitino/Pitino and Izzo; Duke and Virginia.  In the end, Virginia's story was just too strong, their desire for redemption too great.  It's stories like theirs that makes March Madness so magical, we just need to look for them.  I promise the Selection Committee is doing just that.  March Madness is much more fun if we stop seeing our brackets as applications to Goldman Sachs and start incorporating its stories into our own.

Long live March Madness, and three cheers for an eight team College Football Playoff!

Literature Professors Unleashed

I believe Victor Hugo wrote Les Miserables to be a modern, updated, french epic in the model of The Iliad, The Aeneid, and Paradise Lost.  I also contend that Dostoyevsky intended the same with The Brothers Karamazov.  Their chief innovation, of course, was to write in prose rather than in poetic form.  But it doesn't end there.  While The Aenied and The Iliad captured the deeds of some hero past in order to exalt and establish a national identity, Hugo and Dostoyevsky wrote aspirationally.  They created modern heroes Jean Valjean and Alyosha Karamazov to embody the principles each author believed France and Russia respectively needed in order to promote and protect national interests and identity going forward.  Both authors hit their target, for few characters have moved me more than Valjean and Alyosha.

I believe Hugo and Dostoyevsky patterned their epic novels after epic poems purposefully, not incidentally.  For example, some argue that myth theory exists because we all come divinely pre-programmed with the essential elements of myth, and that each of our filaments, à la T.S. Eliot, require no outside training or influence to drum the beats of myth.  It's just part of us.  Others argue that we are all exposed to so much myth theory at such an early age that we are all just parroting it.  While I personally subscribe to the divine interpretation of myth theory, I believe that both Hugo and Dostoyevsky deliberately mined the epic poems for themes, patterns, and constructions to model in their signature novels.  How many pages did Hugo spend in the Paris sewers again?  That's an underworld montage if we've ever seen one.  

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

My best evidence is that Crime and Punishment, as well as The Hunchback of Notre Dame can both be considered modern approximations of a Greek tragedy (especially Hunchback, where every character of worth dies, and every wretch wins).  Dostoyevsky and Hugo each wrote their tragedy, and they each wrote their epic.  I believe there is significant intrinsic evidence within the texts, as well as extrinsic evidence from the authors' lives, to support my thesis, but frankly I don't have the time or expertise to find them all.  Someone who speaks Greek, Latin, French, Russian, or some combination of the same, is far better qualified to make these arguments.  Furthermore, there is absolutely no incentive for anyone to engage in such an endeavor, unless you are a Comp Lit professor stuck in the messed-up world of academic publishing in literary departments.  So, in truth this post is part "punt" and part critique.  

I've never understood the point of academic writing by Lit professors.  Why aren't they all writing novels and poetry?  As an English major, I read fabulous novels from great minds, only to pick them apart in essays that were completely different in style and purpose from the books they vivisected.  Writing about novels is not necessarily good training for writing novels.  People who are good at writing about novels are not necessarily good at writing novels.  Therefore, Lit professors are not generally novelists.  What a waste.  At its highest level, Literature departments reward regurgitative research instead of creation.  Currently, Lit professors must publish rarely-read scholarly articles to remain employed.

"Publish or perish" is a popular saying in academia.  Natural science professors write papers about ideas and discoveries that actually move scientific thought forward.  Social science professors write articles that can and do effect public policy.  English professors write about how a particular author's childhood experiences manifest in his or her writing.  *Yawn*  How does that move society forward?  No doubt there are Lit professors who disagree and can marshall points in support of such articles, but the simple truth is: Their articles do not get read, even within the field.

The Inklings was the name of the writing club J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis belonged to while on the faculty at Oxford.  Western civilization owes a lot to the Inklings—especially Orlando Bloom.  Why aren't humanities departments modeled after the Inklings?  I can only think of two English academic papers that have significantly contributed to society.  One was about Jane Austen's early life and led to the movie Becoming Jane.  The other was about Beatrix Potter and led to the movie Miss Potter.  Both are great films and both no doubt owe their existence to some Lit professor's academic paper. Thank you, wherever you are.  But how many trees had to die for humanities academic journals so that the world could enjoy these two movies?  Does anyone else read these articles besides aspiring screenwriters?  

I believe every Literature department should be like the Inklings, savage feedback and all.  Unfortunately, such change is unlikely to come from within.  Lit department heads were granted advance degrees not based on their creative works, but rather based on their textual analysis.  Why are we applying the scientific method to Literature?  Even Descartes would be offended.  My English degree was fabulous preparation . . . for my law degree.  Law journals are an entirely different animal from academic Lit publishing.  Attorneys (and even judges) routinely cite legal articles by law professors.  Even published legal articles by law students (called "notes") find their way into the holdings of legal opinions.  Every student in every law school is trained to research legal articles by law professors as a way to discover innovative arguments to support their clients' claims and defenses.  Like scientific journals, legal journals can and do change the world. 

Great novels change the world as well, one beautiful life at a time.  Literature departments should be petri dishes of creativity, fomenting great writing through local, regional, national, and university presses.  What benefit to a university does all the current academic Lit froth create?  Every university president should covet the benefits of even one marginally successful novel every five years from the university's literature faculty.  Publicity like that is a game changer.  Universities should not only encourage creative works, but also receive a (fair) share of the profits created thereby.

Obviously, this turns the academic Lit world on its head.  How would universities determine tenure?  Each university Inklings group would peer review the works of its faculty, and perhaps that of other university faculties.  Short story magazines and journals would proliferate, to the benefit of all (if you haven't read E.B. White's short stories, you are really missing out).   Submissions granted publication would carry significant weight, of course.  As it stands, Lit professor contracts are tied only to academic publishing.  In most instances, these contracts expressly state that creative works, submissions, and even publications will not impact tenure determination.  That is scandalous and soul crushing.

There is, of course, benefit to learning how to write and defend a thesis based on textual analysis.  Every scientist learns how to do this first in high school English before using those skills to immortalize their proven scientific hypotheses.  This instruction should be available and enforced in general, required writing courses, not beaten to death in the world of humanities academia.  Effective writing can and should be taught as part of every discipline, but there is no real-world need for the hyper-trained literary analysts that Lit professors become.        

From Blankets by Craig Thompson

The world's Literature professors, they who have the great works of the western world distilled upon their minds like the dews of Milton's highest heaven, are today sitting in their offices straining at gnats.  We should not tolerate this waste of the human spirit.  Universities should encourage and incentivize Literature professors to contribute to the body of creative works they have spent their lives studying.  Sometimes, those who teach can also do.  

Let's give them a shot.  

Kaepernick or Tillman? Maybe It's Both...

When I was at BYU, a black student ran for student body president.  I immediately told my friends that he would win in a landslide. When they asked me why I was so sure, I said, “Very few students care who is student body president, therefore few will actually do any real research.  However, most are conscientious enough to actually vote. So in the absence of any real information, the vast majority will say, “I have no idea who to vote for, but choosing a white student I don’t know over a black student I don’t know would be racist, and since I’m not racist, I’m voting for the black student.”

Sure enough, the black student won by a large margin.  In the months following his victory, I had a few opportunities to get to know the new president, Robert J. Foster, and it became abundantly clear that Rob was a phenomenal human being by any measure.  I doubt he remembers me or our brief interactions, but I still remember how he treated me on one occasion. We were in a meeting where there were many students and many ideas shared.  I don’t remember the topic, but I do remember that I raised my hand at one point and made a comment that I knew significantly moved the dialogue forward. He looked at me and nodded as I spoke, and then after the meeting he went out of his way to find me in the crowd to discuss my idea and to thank me.  As he did so, he looked at me with gratitude and sincere appreciation. I truly felt that he saw me, saw my desire for goodness and my capacity to help make good things happen.  He wasn’t threatened, he was a secure leader. I have never forgotten that brief interaction.

I am a fifth generation native Californian, born in Petaluma.  I was then raised in a suburb of Seattle at the height of the Microsoft era. I saw the homes of Bill Gates and Paul Allen go up on Lake Washington.  I attended BYU in Provo, Utah. I am entirely a product of the West, and I did not grow up seeing racism. I honestly do not remember either parent of mine ever saying anything negative about anyone because of the color of their skin at any time in my life.  I do not doubt that there is racism in the West, but I did not witness any of it.

I met and married my wonderful wife while we were students at BYU.  She was born in Idaho and grew up in Montana. After we both graduated, I was accepted at Duke University School of Law, and we left the West with our 1 year old baby and another baby on the way.

Durham, North Carolina was a very new experience.  I had been a missionary for our Church in Chile for two years and my wife had done the same in southern Spain.  I’m satisfied you can’t call people wholly naive who have spent 10% of their lives wading into the the lives of others to help them believe in God.  We had seen a lot of poverty, pain, heartache, and tragedy up close and personal. But there was something different about Durham, something I couldn’t put my finger on.  It took me a few weeks to figure out what was bothering me so much. Finally, the supermarket experience helped me figure it out.

I was walking down a long aisle in a Durham supermarket.  I realized that my item was not on that aisle, so I continued to the end.  There was a black man about my age, 25-30, coming towards me in the aisle. He also seemed to be doing the same, just walking to the end of the aisle.  He wasn’t actively searching the shelves. Being a friendly person, I attempted to make eye contact with him for several seconds as we approached one another, so that I could say “hello.”  He never looked at me. He didn’t look away, he didn’t look down, he just looked right past me. There was no pride on his face, no smirk, no evidence that he was trying to ignore me or diminish me.  As he walked past, my overwhelming impression was that he was merely assuming that I would ignore him. I was dumbfounded.

As I came to the end of the aisle and turned to the left, I immediately walked past a white man of about 30 pushing his shopping cart.  He nodded at me and smiled at me like I was in his club. It wasn’t a friendly smile, it was a confidential smile, if that makes sense.  The immediate contradiction between the two interactions was horrifying to me and I almost yelled at him, “I am not in your club!  WE--YOU and I--do not have a club!”

Again and again during our three years in Durham, my wife and I were saddened by how surprised black people were at merely being treated decently.  We did not go out of our way to do so, did not make any special effort, and did not treat the white people we encountered any differently. The reactions of the black people would typically follow a predictable arc: surprise, delight, distrust, and then normalcy.  At first they were surprised at being addressed as an equal, then they were delighted by it, then they wondered what it was we wanted from them, but finally they realized we were just being ourselves and settled into a normal, healthy interaction. The above arc describes our interactions with normal, black, North Carolina residents with whom we interacted in the community.

My black peers at the law school were not immediately surprised to be treated well, and are some of the finest individuals I have ever met. People like Chris Richardson, Venroy July, and Jonathan Calmore, to name a few.  But even they knew what it was like to be marginalized. I have heard many of these honest, accomplished, and talented individuals share stories of having to put their head down and just take undeserved abuse from authority figures, merely for being black.  Their stories infuriate me. If someone had treated me as they had been treated, I know that I would not have been able to humbly take it, that I would have fought back.

One day during law school, I overheard a black, female law student’s conversation with a friend.  This particular woman had always impressed me. She was kind, competent, and extremely intelligent.  She was talking about racism and I heard her say, “I almost prefer those who are openly racist with me, because then at least I know where I stand.”  I knew that she and I had interacted frequently during our time at law school, and that she could never say that I had been openly racist to her. Did that mean that she trusted me less?  Did that mean that she suspected I was secretly racist, and that I thought less of her? I admit that initially I was worried about me and how she saw me.  But then I began to try and imagine the experiences she must have gone through that she would say such a thing.  My heart ached for her and so many who must feel similarly.

These experiences provide a backdrop for my thoughts on the NFL kneeling issue.  It is painful to see so many good friends and family members so vehemently disagree about this.  What if I told you that everyone (almost) is right? Too many are talking past each other, and it is because too many are speaking a different dialect, and don’t even know it.

One such dialect is the military dialect.  In the military, the flag is revered to a degree most regular citizens cannot even comprehend.  To those in the military, our flag is a symbol of the sacrifices and risks every service man and service woman makes for our country.  Those sacrifices are extreme and over time those sacrifices begin to coalesce around the symbol of the flag and the national anthem.  This is by design. Military involvement is dangerous work, and symbols and mantras and ideals are used to help assuage the emotional toll.

Even more importantly, to our wonderful service men and women the flag comes to represent not just their own living sacrifices, but the sacrifices of all those who came before them.  Specifically, those heroic men and women who have given their lives for our country. This heightened reverence for the flag is not limited to those who have served, but emanates from them throughout their immediate and extended families.  Over time, a veteran’s respect for the flag becomes readily apparent to those around him or her, causing a similar increase in respect and reverence in an outward-extending rippling effect. My two grandfathers served in the military, and one graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy. Do I betray them and their military service if I support those who kneel during the national anthem?

This heightened respect for the flag within our country just is, and everyone involved in this discussion needs to accept its very relevant place in the dialogue about kneeling during the national anthem.  For the many Americans who don’t understand the strong emotional reaction many have against the kneelers, this greater understanding about what the flag and the national anthem mean to so many among us should help explain.

To illustrate this cultural difference, allow me to explain a unique feature of latin american culture.  There are not “Yo Momma” jokes in latin america. There is no such thing as a funny “Yo Momma” joke there.  Here in America, we understand that “Yo Momma” jokes are not referencing your mother, or any mother in particular, but rather a nebulous, nowhere, “neutral” mother.  One can argue that “Yo Momma” jokes are in bad taste, but few in America would say they are extremely insulting, or that they qualify as “fighting words.”

Not so in latin america.

While I was a missionary in Chile, I worked with a missionary from Argentina who was about the most cheerful and hilarious fellow I’ve ever known. In our apartment, there were three of us from America and the one Argentinian. The four of us became great friends during our time serving together. During one period of rest, the topic of “Yo Momma” jokes came up.  My Argentinian friend couldn’t believe that we joked about our own mothers in such a way, he found it extremely offensive.

We explained that we weren’t talking about our mothers, or anyone else’s mother for that matter.  We broke down the jokes for him and their cultural context. After awhile, he began to understand. We decided to take it a step further and explained that we wanted to engage in a social experiment where we made “Yo Momma” jokes to him in Spanish to see if he could be conditioned not to have such a strong reaction.  He agreed.

The result was fascinating.  After we had explained the cultural context, but before we were making the jokes directly to him, he was able to crack a smile at a few of the jokes and see some of the humor in the most innocent of Yo Momma jokes.  Once we began saying them directly to him; however, his response was visceral. So strong was his cultural opposition to denigrating one’s mother, he could not help but get riled up at the quite innocuous jokes we related.  He knew we loved him, he knew we had never seen or met his mother, he knew it was just an experiment, and he knew that we were not serious. Nevertheless, we could see him physically struggle with the confluence of emotional waves peaking within him.

It was eye opening.

Like the flag and national anthem, the president of the United States of America is also a symbol of our nation.  However, that symbol is not static. There is a new face every four to eight years. Many people will honor and revere the office and the individual one year, only to decry and demean the office and the new individual immediately after the next election.  Most Americans would say that the office of the President of the United States is one of our nation’s greatest symbols, and that denunciations of any currently sitting president is a reviling of the man and not the country or office he represents. One of the great traits of our republic is that we are free to oppose the president while maintaining our patriotism.  More specifically, we are free to oppose the president without going to jail or to the guillotine. This is one of the greatest of American innovations. Opposition to a King had always been treason, but here in America, as well as in the rest of America’s democratic progeny, opposition to the executive does not necessarily mean one is unpatriotic.

I submit that those who kneel during the anthem, and their supporters, are applying the same logic of opposing the president to the flag and national anthem.  They are opposing what they see as unjust components of of the American experience, without opposing all the good, or diminishing those who have sacrificed their lives to protect our country. And, since many of them do not have the heightened cultural reverence of the flag and national anthem that comes with military service, they are confused as to why their protest against the national anthem engenders so much more hatred than any everyday American’s rant about the president.  We as Americans have peacefully coexisted with our fellow Americans with opposing presidential preferences for centuries. The are our friends, co-workers, and family members. Another hallmark of Americanism is that we can agree to disagree about the president agreeably. "Then why not the flag and national anthem?" some wonder.

For many Americans, the flag does not primarily represent their own sacrifices in the military, or the military lives lost protecting our soil.  For many Americans, the flag represents the whole melting pot of our country, all of its history and opportunity, of which the military is one important part, but not the only part.  And unfortunately, many Americans have been repeatedly pushed to the bottom of that melting pot and been scalded. Just as a large pot can produce many bowls of delicious soup and still have caked on muck at the bottom, many of us floating in the middle or at the top of the American melting pot do not fully understand what it has felt like to be at the bottom.  This is especially true in the western United States.

I have a close family member who lives in a mid-sized, western city that has a military base among its population.  He did not serve in the military, but he is vehemently opposed to the kneelers. A discussion with him was very revealing.  Among his comments were the following, “most of the black people in this town are soldiers from the local army base. They are among the best men and women I have ever met.  I have never heard any of them complain about racism here, and never once heard anyone else ever speak ill of them or any other black person.”

There is a lot going on in his statement, so allow me to unpack it, (1) his own experience with black Americans has been entirely positive; (2) his own experience with white treatment of black Americans has been entirely positive; and most importantly (3) his own impression of black Americans is entirely positive!  He is not racist, and he is deeply and genuinely offended at any suggestion that he is.  He is not racist and he does not see racism.

He is like I was before I went to North Carolina.  He and I grew up in largely a post-racist society. When I went to Durham, I was thrust into a late-racist society.  I am sensitive to the fact that I painting an entire region with a broad brush. However, all I can do is speak to my own experience, and I am applying what I believe is my own objective analysis to how racist a particular region is. My measurement is:

In general, how surprised is the local black population to be treated with basic human dignity by a newly encountered white person?  

Having lived in Seattle, Provo, Rhode Island, Houston, and Durham for significant periods of time, I believe I am qualified to share my personal experiences and opinion on the regional differences of this particular indicator.  Houston is significantly better than Durham, Rhode Island even better than Houston, and Seattle and Provo are even better still.

Why is this important?  It is important because my family member does not react to racism in the same way he doesn’t react to “Yo Momma” jokes. However, blacks around the country, and especially in certain regions, live with racism on a daily basis in a way that many whites across the country have no context for.  The Yo Momma jokes are ripping them apart. Had I never lived in North Carolina, I would never have believed it. It was only after having many black friends share personal stories with me where they feared for their lives for no other reason than driving while black, that I began to understand the severity of the racism they deal with. While these instances are more common in the South, they are found everywhere in our nation.

The result of these cultural distinctions is that we are talking past each other. We need to start listening to one another, and start saying different things:

I am so sorry that you lost your son in the service, I understand that the national anthem means something to you that it couldn’t possibly mean to me based on my life experience.  Please, please believe me when I say that for me, supporting the kneelers does not mean I dishonor your son!

or

I am so, so sorry that you have been treated horribly for merely being black.  That is unacceptable and unfair and I can see how your American experience has not been the same as mine and why you might feel there is a need for change, and a need to protest the national anthem. I understand that your doing so is not intended to reject our fallen soldiers. 

There are some who oppose the kneelers who are actually racist.  But it is my experience, and my profound belief, that the vast majority of Americans who oppose the kneelers have more cultural experience and background with the flag/military culture than they do with the racism/mistreatment culture.  They aren’t racist themselves and they just don’t have significant or meaningful interactions with the reality of racism. For them, kneeling during the anthem is like Yo Momma jokes for my Argentinian friend. It is too emotionally difficult.

There may be some who support the kneelers who wish to see America brought down.  But it is my experience, and my profound belief, that the vast majority of Americans who support the kneelers earnestly believe that it is possible to support better treatment for black Americans without in any way dishonoring the military, our veterans, or our fallen heroes. For these Americans, those who oppose kneelers seem to be ignoring the damaging treatment of black Americans, and it hurts them emotionally just like Yo Momma jokes hurt my Argentinian friend.

Too many of us are reacting emotionally based on our own cultural experiences.  My hope is that both sides might try harder to feel what the other feels, and that both sides may not give in so easily to the “either/or” trap.  America is built on our founders’ ability to avoid the either/or trap. It didn’t have to be either states’ rights or federal rights. It could be both.  The simple truth is that some things are better handled by the states, and others by the federal government. People may disagree about which things, but people who are honest with themselves have to admit that depending on the issue, we all bang the drum for states rights for some things, and then bang the drum for federal rights on others. I do not betray my grandfathers by supporting the kneelers, but rather honor their service. Is it possible to betray our veterans by pursuing the very ideals they fought and died to protect?

America is here because we repeatedly figure out ways not to get stuck in “either/or”.  It is okay for many of us to feel emotionally troubled by kneeling during the national anthem, and still be very supportive of justice for black Americans.  No amount of logic is going to make the emotional turmoil go away, it is ingrained in us. It is also okay for many of us to support those who kneel during the anthem, and still feel proud to be an American and honor our service men and women as well as those who have given our lives for our country. No amount of anger over kneeling during the anthem is going to make our emotional turmoil over racism go away.

We can honor our military AND demand justice and equality for all because we are American, and that’s what we do.  We get things done.

Democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, electricity, telephone, flight, computers, internet, and on and on. We get things done.

America, we’ve got this.